BOClean 4.24 is out

I take it that the

is what you are accenting. Interesting food for thought. Would be nice to know what else it gathers!!!

 

this is bothersome.

is this standard eula on all of comodo's products (or "free" software in general) ?

i rather pay for products without such wording.

 

I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Hi, folks: Is this a common practice of ALL freewares? It is a so-called hidden agenda. If(hope it is a big if) comodo is the only one doing this, then ,IMO, we , as users, have a A-bomb to deal with.

 

The EULA statement is a way for them to protect their software from people altering it and then changing some of its functions. It does smack of "big brother" monitoring. But I guess it is their way of "covering their behind".

 

4.24 running fine here(so far)

 

Any worries of Winsock problems with this version, that had been reported with the previous one?

 

And it works very well here!

TH

 

No worries here...........

Been running smoothly on 1 98SE........6 2000's and 1 XP machine without a single hick up!

 

hi, folks; This official release of 4.24 seems working so far so good. I had a rare opportunity sneak previewing 4.24 last week( a few hours of window opportunity), but that release caused some corrupted database files, rendered BoClean useless. I do hope this one has that bug fixed.

 

This I didn't know about.....I got my link PM'd to me and I couldn't crash BC and I tried hard to do so....


What OS are you running?.....Vista

 

hi, folks: My O/S is winxp home sp2. I d/l thru OP's link, it was valid only for short few hours. The problem occurred during one window boot-up, when BoClean trying to update its database.

 

As soon as Comodo found out a pre-release copy had leaked out, they pulled the plug on further downloads and probably ver. 4.24 updates. I think they wanted to make sure a perfect release went out when THEY released it.

 

Comodo have BOClean 4.24 for download on their own site. It went up late on Tuesday. On Monday they only had 4.23 up for download.
http://www.comodo.com/boclean/boclean.html
This is not the one that was pulled last week as far as I am aware.

 

The EULA requires that you agree to NO privacy policy. That is probably just a strange oversight on Comodo's part but I wouldn't agree to the EULA until that dead link is fixed. The Eulalyzer says the Eula is not that bad but does give its highest disapproval to the "web address" section which is the link to the non existent privacy policy.

There is discussion at dslreports currently about the EULA. Many think it way too invasive and have refused to install Comodo BoClean and some have now removed it once they read the Eula. I think the legalese is not very well worded but I agree pretty much with the Eulalzer that it is not a bad Eula except for the missing Privacy Policy.

I can't give a link to the dslreports thread as the site is currently down. Trouble was brewing earlier today at nac.net and evidently finally took out the site.

 

It appears that the webmaster that put the CBOC EULA page together placed a bad link (within the EULA itself) to the Privacy Policy. The correct PP link is at the bottom of all Comodo pages...

 

thanks for your info

 

Yes, I realize that the Webmaster goofed but it should be fixed and should have been proofed to begin with. It is a strange privacy policy but then Comodo is a strange company. But the real worry here is the indemnification clause. Big discussion on it at dslreports. After reading the dslr discussion, I have changed my mind about the Eula and I would not agree to it. I don't want to be beholden to an indemnification clause for the rest of my life. Even if I later uninstall BoClean I would still be bound by that clause. If Comodo has legal problems that involve BoClean they can involve me and force me to pay their legal expenses. That clause should be removed from the Eula.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18548655

 

Thanks for the link - fatness summed it up quite well.
How "Commode-Bowl"-ish of them to include such a clause.
Just one more reason to enjoy GPL/OSS.

 

You all might want to read the Comodo thread on the Eula. ProjMgr just tied everything together as to the probable reason why the indemnification clause is there. Recall Melih's boast "bring em on"? Yeah, since we users will likely be footing the bill due to that clause. Melih posted earlier in the thread in regards to another concern with the Eula. I'm hoping he will post and clarify why that clause is needed. He said in regard to the other concern with the Eula that he would take it to his lawyers. I would hope the same will happen with this clause which is far more offensive IMO than the other concern...not to make light of the other concern though...it is important also.

http://forums.comodo.com/comodo_boc...e_agreement_eula_comodo_boclean-t9956.30.html

 

I was just about install Comodo Boclean and i saw this thread. I have to say i didnt install it yet. I also going to wait what happens in Comodo forum amd if Melih will answer. Thanks Mele20 for the link.

 

A mod there just asked for the original PSC BoClean Eula. So, I posted it and you can see it doesn't have an indemnification clause. The mod was saying that most Eulas have an Indemnification clause! I don't think so. I try to read Eulas but they can be long and convoluted and maybe that has been in some and I missed it. Maybe also, we are misinterpreting what it means ...but I doubt it. It seems clear. I too hope Melih will post and try to address our concerns.

 

Just another in what is likely to become a string of things to turn me off from even wanting to try it again.

 

While I feel a home personal use PC user would have little to worry about based on my reading of this and linked threads, I find it troubling.

Indeed it does look like a big transfer of liability and the survival of this liability in my mind can and should be challenged if an enforcement is ever attempted. Judges in courts are very opinionated when it comes to this kind of thing and this would certainly raise an eyebrow. The enforceability of this is highly suspect. Nevertheless the costs of defense is of concern, one would have to respond to such an action which would mean user would need legal assistance should a legal action ever occur against a user. At that point use of Comodo BOClean is a large liability and NOT free.

While I feel a home PC set up for personal use vs. a business, has little to be concerned about. This EULA is troubling. It is my understanding from earlier stories and discussions that Kevin and Nancy had business customers that were 'paying the freight' so that the home users could get updates year after year for free.

Now after Comodo take over, business customers in order to protect their company would never want to subject themselves to this EULA, thus I would think this would involve mass exodus of businesses from Comodo BOClean.

Note: I have never loaded anything beyond 4.22 paid which makes me.

 

Kevin the guy that created BoClean responses to this EULA stuff in post #79 here. http://forums.comodo.com/comodo_boc...e_agreement_eula_comodo_boclean-t9956.75.html