A few days ago I wrote about several overseas firms that were struggling to provide simple EULAs that would also give them all the legal protections they felt they needed. By coincidence, about the same time I was corresponding with those readers, I was also discussing EULA issues with Andrew Rowley of Picnam Software.

I was originally drawn to Rowley's site because of an article he'd posted on his site after the Sony debacle calling for minimum customer entitlements and a software licensing code of conduct. He makes a persuasive argument, so I'd encourage you to read it. But as I was reading his piece, I got curious as to what kind of EULA he used for his own image file-renaming program. He replied that he just uses a copyright statement and this barebones EULA that he wrote himself:

This is the license agreement for the Picnam Software. Installing and using the software indicates your agreement to the terms of this license. If you do not agree to the terms of this license you must uninstall and delete it from your computer.
You may use Picnam without charge for an evaluation period of 30 days. If you wish to use it after the evaluation period, you must purchase a license.

License
To purchase a license for Picnam, go to http://www.picnam.com/buy.html
Under the license you may:
- Install and use Picnam on one computer.
- Install and use Picnam on a second computer, if the second computer is normally used by the same person and the software will not be used on both computers at the same time.

Limited Warranty
This program is provided as-is without warranty of any kind. The author will not be liable for damages of any kind arising out of use of this software.

Did Rawley worry he could be putting himself at legal risk by having such a simple EULA? "I haven't had a lawyer look at it, I suspect if I did I would end up with the usual pages of legalese," Rawley wrote me. "Basically I wanted to set out the conditions of use, but make it as easy to understand as possible. I do worry that I am being naive not having something more complex. However, the reality is that I am unlikely to ever sue anyone based on this EULA, and I am more concerned about someone deciding to sue me. Realistically I think that is also very unlikely, and if someone did decide they wanted to sue me for some reason, I don't know that a more complex EULA would stop them."

If you're going to have a EULA, Rawley reasons, it ought to be one your customers can read and understand without having to go to law school first. "The problem as I see it is that there are so many different license agreements that people can't realistically be expected to read and understand them all," he writes. "If you accept that EULAs are contracts, you probably enter into more different contracts installing the software on a PC than the average person would in all other areas of their life combined. I would like to see software sold in much the same way as any other product is sold, with most terms and conditions implied. In that case, you would only have separate EULAs where there was something you really do need to know."

Perhaps Rawley is being foolish not to add a few thousand words of densely-packed disclaimers to his EULA. But, on the other hand, perhaps the ones who are really being foolish are those that listen to the lawyers and weigh down their license agreements with onerous terms that almost surely will never do them any good. The simple fact is that if more software companies around the world adopt Rawley's approach, it would be to the benefit of the industry and its customers alike.