Adaware v5.7 and reviewing??

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Paul Wilders, Mar 29, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    As it seems, the EULA coming with the new Adaware v5.7 prohibits reviewing the software without a specific consent from Lavasoft.

    If my interpretation is correct, I do regard this as a serious issue, and in fact coming close to censorship.

    Although any software company has the perrogative to state anything they feel like in their EULA, I for one fail to see any reason for the above mentioned - and (if my interpretation is a correct one) firmly believe it's not done.

    I would like Lavasoft commenting on this, and explaining why they have opted for this. First time I ever encountered this in any EULA.

    regards.

    paul
     
  2. SmackDown

    SmackDown Guest

    Very interesting, does this only apply to profession reviews? or would this also rule out individual reviews, meaning one can't really recommend it, cause that would be a personal review.
     
  3. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Hello Smackdown, and welcome  ;).

    A matter of interpretation; personally, I read it a personal view/comment is allowed.

    regards.

    paul
     
  4. Eagle1

    Eagle1 Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    206
    Location:
    Rio Rancho NM - Nevis, West Indies
    I read it as there is absolutely no public review of the product without their permission. It uses the word benchmark so I would assume that making personal observations from one's own machine and not a test machine would be permissable. However, I also read that as meaning personal comments only to report a bug and that any promotion or negative comments are not permitted without prior permission.  :mad:

    However, at this point that is a big assumption and exactly why I made the comments in my post yesterday regarding the EULA and further testing.  :mad:

    In fact I have taken it a step farther and dropped the application altogether because of it.   :)  

    A really good alternative is available and public review (good or bad) is always welcome and encouraged.  :D
     
  5. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Well,

    Lavasoft did not drop by to provide any explanation; migt drop them an email asking them to do so.

    In the meanwhile: I'll analyze the software installed on a system from another individual. That way I'm not bound in any way to the EULA, and am able to comment as I wish where ever I feel like.

    regards,

    paul
     
  6. Checkout

    Checkout Security Rhinoceros

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Posts:
    1,226
    Such a thing would be inadmissible in law (at least, European law) and a violation of freedom of speech everywhere.  Why do people insist on making clauses which are invalid?  :(
     
  7. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    I'll tell you Checkout, at least my opinion. I think that people put those useless clauses that would never hold up in court just to scare people. I suppose we would all be amazed at how many people will read things like that and just accept it as face value... "oops can't review this they wrote in here that I'm not allowed!" to be honest, I imagine adding some stupid lines like that actually save some companies lots of time & money. I'm not saying they are good things, or that this one is right, it seems rather immoral since it leads people to believe the law doesn't apply...
    But I saw this same sort of thing on the news once... all these stores/businesses had signs up saying if you were injured or anything on the premisis it was your own problem and they could not be sued or held responsible no matter what. Of course this is not true, they can certainly be sued, but it's also not illegal for them to have these misleading signs up, and the $2 sign saves them lots of lawsuits form people who read and say oh... "Guess I can't sue them cause the chair I sat in fell apart and I broke my back.. they have a sign."
     
  8. MickeyTheMan

    MickeyTheMan Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    1,016
    I am also concerned about this and have posted in the LS forums for clarification.
     
  9. luv2bsecure

    luv2bsecure Infrequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    713
    Re: Adaware v5.7 and reviewing??

    What a totally absurd thing to write in a EULA.
    Surely they don't really think they can offer a product and the buyer is not free to write a review without their permission?

    DETOX has got to be right about it just being a poor man's bluff. I hate to sound rude, but it would take someone really ignorant to think they could really do that!

    Let's see....

    Maybe Universal will start telling Roger Ebert that they need his permission before he writes a review of one of their new movies.

    Maybe Carnival Cruise Lines will start telling TRAVEL magazine they can't publish a review of their latest offering.

    Maybe the restaurant down the street will start telling the newspapers in town that permission is needed to write a review in the food section.

    Maybe we'll soon be reading in PC MAGAZINE  that they were refused permission to review the latest Compaq computer. Sorry, readers.

    Maybe Lavasoft really thinks someone has to give them a jingle before reviewing AdAware ANYWHERE! Now that would tell us what bright lights are in the Lavasoft Labs.

    Maybe Lavasoft's attitude about several things lately is enough to say thanks, but no thanks.

    John
     
  10. MickeyTheMan

    MickeyTheMan Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    1,016
    Rental.
    You may not rent, lease, or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT

    I just wonder if this could apply ?
     
  11. Checkout

    Checkout Security Rhinoceros

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Posts:
    1,226
    Let's put all this in perspective:

    "Downloading this software explicitly implies you agree to our terms, which are:
    • For the duration of your license, you may never dispose of your bodily wastes
    • Visiting a toilet, whether witnessed or not, constitutes a breach of this agreement
    • We reserve the right to assume you have been to the toilet within 24 hours of installing our product
    • We are in no way accountable for your subsequent medical treatment
    Should you survive this agreement, delete all materials the moment you wish to use them."

    It's a damn shame LavaSoft chose to go mental this way.  Their terms and conditions are not only immoral and illegal, but unenforcible.  It's a shame; it's such a fine product.

    Edit:  typo.
    Edit: damn to damn
     
  12. MickeyTheMan

    MickeyTheMan Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    1,016
    This matter should be considerd close with Bee's response to my post:

    Quote  
    Shouldn't  a security or privacy advocate  welcome close scrutiny of it's application  


    Yes we should and we are and we will. I admit it was a bad policy, therefor I have decided to rescind it. I made a bad decision, and I apologise for it. I was and still am the one in charge over the EULA, so if anybody wants to yell please yell at me and not the others

    Here is a link to the new EULA.

    http://63.217.29.135/docs/EULA.txt

    Thank you MTM for coming to our board and letting us know how you felt about it.
    Anybody who wants to benchmark test any of our products and publish the results is welcome to do so, without any prior approval from us.

    I like to apologise for the trouble and confusion this has caused.  

    --------------
    Ann - Christine  Åkerlund
     
  13. Mr.Blaze

    Mr.Blaze The Newbie Welcome Wagon

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Posts:
    2,842
    Location:
    on the sofa
    what about clintions free information act and freadom of speach dont that over rule that bs lol.
     
  14. Checkout

    Checkout Security Rhinoceros

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Posts:
    1,226
    Whoa!  Nice going, Mickey!  And congrats to LavaSoft, for doing the right thing!
     
  15. Eagle1

    Eagle1 Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    206
    Location:
    Rio Rancho NM - Nevis, West Indies
    Excellent   :D  This is very nice thing to see and quite consistent with their history.  Thumbs up :D :D
     
  16. wizard

    wizard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    818
    Location:
    Europe - Germany - Duesseldorf
    I think this will become more and more a trend to write things into the EULA without thinking about the consequences. Microsoft is a master in doing so. Good to see that Lavasoft reacted quickly and appologized for their mistake. :)

    wizard
     
  17. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    Yes very nicely said from Lavasoft and well done. The ability to admit and correct a mistake is a valuable one. My faith is certainly restored  :cool:
     
  18. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Mickey,

    very nice work! And as for LS is concerned: I applaud them.

    regards.

    paul
     
  19. MickeyTheMan

    MickeyTheMan Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    1,016
    But this should also show that when someone has a problem with a proggie, it's always best to go to official forum and post  question there, rather than at other boards which could be considered badmouthing.

    Why not go to the source first ?
    Lavasoft have handled it quite correctly in my books by freely admitting a bad jugment call , but more importlantly correcting the problem swiftly ! ;)

    And i do have one wish :  would it be possible that all those concerned with privacy really concentrate on fighting those that try to infringe upon it, rather than be at each others throats  ?
    I can just see some nasties laughing on their way to the banks when they see any of this !
     
  20. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Mickey,

    Fully agreed. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown to me, Bee did not respond to former questions (regarding other issues) in private mail (which is even better than posting on a board IMHO).

    Couldn't agree more. This is a two-way street: not only for concerned software users, but for software coders as well.

    regards.

    paul
     
  21. Blacksheep

    Blacksheep Spyware Fighter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    109
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    Kudos to MTM and LS! :D
     
  22. ExileBlue

    ExileBlue Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Posts:
    1
    Couldn't agree more with the comments regarding LS. It appears to be an excellent product and I've had no dramas using it with any of my boxes. As a test I clean installed XP then spent a couple of days with some heavy surfing. Adaware found 32 "components" and succesfully deleted them. Pre and post comparisons of my cookies and registry confirmed this. (On reflection this looks like a blatant plug - it's only my opinion and I'm not associated in any way with LS)
     
  23. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    ExileBlue - Welcome to the forum!

    And don't worry - we absolutely do not have a problem here with people letting us know that they like  any given product (and why).

    Enjoy the forums. Pete
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.