Just when do authors overstep the boundries of EULA's? When they present such a EULA that presents itself to interfere with other software on your computer. I always thought that EULA's were invoked to protect software developers from piracy, theft, and to unbind the author from any legal issue's arrising out of the end user's use of the software.

Ultimately I clicked the I disagree button, but the whole idea has flamed me. I would be a hypocrate if I still installed it. I do not believe just because a EULA states that they can take control of your CPU cycles by remote procedures, gives them the right too.

Here is what's going on: http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=...47202429&page=1

Would post the EULA but not sure if that actually breaks it, so I just won't. LOL he has already threatened me with a civil action suit

EULA already has been abused too much. Using the most confusing terminolgy they have been able to say things, for example, "parts of this program will use your machine's resources to make our company money," except it would never appear that blatant.

imo guidelines for limiting EULAs need to be put in place. For one, the length of EULAs: if they are so long the require hiring a lawyer to study them for your then it's unreasonable to assume anyone normal person is going to read them in full. Secondly, the acceptable clauses in EULAs: severe limitations on 'authorization' clauses - ie. by clicking "yes" you authorize me to harvest your spare cpu cycles, etc. If there is going to be some exchange of properties - like using free software in return for spare cpu cycles - it needs to be spelled out clearly, at the very beginning of the EULA in plain english, or not included at all.

These would be only starting points. Clarification on all levels would only help consumers, and honest companies.