My recent column about one software company with some particularly nasty terms in its license agreements stirred up quite a few readers.

Many readers were concerned with how the original terms prohibited any criticism of the company's products, or the terms themselves. "The most troublesome thing about this is the idea that the customer 'agrees' to the license just by reading it," wrote one reader. "No doubt you are correct in saying the company could not get a court to enforce its terms, but the average customer may not know that. When they see something like this, they are going to be afraid to criticize the company, because they've 'agreed' not to do so."

Several readers suggested ways that information about egregious sneakwrap could be shared. "A website listing competing products that have them would do a lot to use our venerated system of capitalism to drive business away from the most offensive, and provide more business to the more consumer friendly companies," one reader wrote. "This would not be a product comparison, which many of the companies prohibit in their licenses, but a 'EULA or license' comparison of competing products. How could they object? You are not comparing usability or features, leave that to the customer."

"Maybe there could be a list where users could say with which companies they have had a positive experience," wrote another reader. "Also, this could include companies with 'acceptable' EULA's. If I were making a software buy or recommendation, I would consider a company on such a list first."

OK, let's give it a try. There are definitely some obstacles, but there's no reason we can't at least start identifying those companies readers think have the best and the worst license terms. Write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com and let me know who is one your list of naughty and nice, and why.