The Terms

6.2 Activation Code Required.
A.INSTALLATION, ACCESS, TRANSFERS AND CONTINUED USE OF THE SOFTWARE MAY REQUIRE AN ACTIVATION CODE. YOU MUST REGISTER YOUR ACQUISITION OF THE SOFTWARE WITH AUTODESK BEFORE AN ACTIVATION CODE IS ISSUED TO YOU. AUTODESK SHALL USE YOUR REGISTRATION DETAILS IN CONFORMANCE WITH ITS APPLICABLE PRIVACY POLICY, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE USER DOCUMENTATION OR AVAILABLE ON AUTODESK'S WEBSITE OR ON REQUEST.
B. THE ACTIVATION SECURITY MECHANISMS MAY DISABLE THE SOFTWARE IF YOU TRY TO TRANSFER IT TO ANOTHER COMPUTER, IF YOU TAMPER WITH THE DATE SETTING MECHANISMS ON YOUR COMPUTER, IF YOU USE THE SOFTWARE PAST AN APPLICABLE EVALUATION PERIOD OR LIMITED TERM, OR IF YOU UNDERTAKE CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS THAT MAY OFFSET THE SECURITY MODE. MORE INFORMATION IS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICABLE USER DOCUMENTATION OR AVAILABLE FROM AUTODESK ON REQUEST

As distributed and posted on Adobe's website in August of 2004, the Photoshop CS end user license agreement read:

THE SOFTWARE MAY INCLUDE PRODUCT ACTIVATION AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY DESIGNED TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED COPYING. THE ACTIVATION TECHNOLOGY MAY PREVENT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE ACTIVATION PROCESS DESCRIBED IN THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION. Visit http://www.adobe.com for information about product activation.

Comparison

Adobe takes a very minimalist approach in its EULA, while Autodesk goes into considerable detail about the possible consequences of its copy protection. Which approach is better? I think both are unsatisfactory, either for what they say or for what they don't.

One could argue that Autodesk is at least being more honest than Adobe by warning the customer of the many different actions that could lead to the software being disabled. But EULAs terms aren't warnings - they're supposedly agreements. So the AutoCad EULA is essentially saying that you agree to be deprived of your use of the software because you dared "tamper" with the date settings of your own computer or because of any "certain other actions" the copy protection might not like.

(Speaking of warnings, I'm going on the assumption here that the EULA does not represent the first chance the customer has to even find out there's some form of copy protection in the product. Both Autodesk and Adobe have extensive information on their websites about their product activation schemes, but that's not the case with every vendor. If the EULA is the only notice the customer gets that product activation is required, I think that's tantamount to slipping in spyware and would be worth several zillion minus points.)

Adobe's vague "may include product activation" can be excused to a degree since some versions of Photoshop CS do and some do not. And I think it is good that the Photoshop EULA doesn't force you to agree that the product activation can take away your right to use the product for whatever reason, as AutoCad's warnings seem to do.

But there's another issue here, one that I will be writing about in more detail shortly. What information can the vendor collect about you through its DRM mechanism, and what can they do with it? Adobe says nothing about that in its license. Autodesk says they can do whatever their privacy policy says they can do, and a quick look at their privacy policy doesn't reveal much they can't do. So on the issue of privacy and DRM, both EULAs are bad -- AutoCad for what it does say and Photoshop for what it doesn't.

My Scoring

Since this whole exercise is about what the EULAs say, I'm not going to deduct points just for the existence of copy protection in a product. But I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. I deduct one point from Photoshop's score for not making any privacy pledge regarding information its DRM collects from customers. I deduct one point for the AutoCad EULA's claim to collect and use such data, and a second point for its list of actions that can deprive customers of their use of the product.

Total for Copy Protection Terms:

Autodesk AutoCad 2005: Minus 2 points
Adobe Photoshop CS: Minus 1 point