What's your interpretation of this EULA clause?

I purchased some software that turns out not to work very well on my laptop (most likely due to an unusual hardware profile). Checking the EULA, I read this:

I contacted the vendor and was told that the software and licenses are not, in fact, transferable at all. If I want to license the software on a 2nd machine, I’ll need to fork over $50 for another license.

Am I misreading the EULA? What else could that clause possibly mean?

It sounds to me like it’s a really roundabout way of saying that if you sell your computer the new owner has to delete the program and anything you made with said program. Basically, no, it’s not transferable.

ISTM there’s easier ways of saying that. My guess is that they, first, want to make sure the new owner is bound by all the previous EULA statements such as not holding the company responsible for breaking the computer, exploits that let a virus in, files the user makes creating legal trouble etc…those still stand, but they can’t actually use the program.
For example, if I buy Photoshop and then sell you my computer, you have to delete photoshop and that all the my edited pictures. However, should someone ever hack into my computer through a photoshop file…not their problem, as per the EULA, should the computer ever start malfunctioning due to a problem with some old registry entries…not their problem.

On the other hand, it says “may”, you could say “I never accepted them” but I supposed they could come back with, tough shit. I think it would be better (for them) if they said something like “Transferring the machine transfers all rights of the EULA, however…”

It also kinda implies that the new owner doesn’t have to delete the program so long as they don’t want to be bound by the EULA (oh my what a loss).

I don’t agree with Joey P’s interpretation. It clearly says you can transfer all the rights: “Licensee may permanently transfer all of the rights under this EULA”. How else can you interpret that?

The person those rights are transferred to (the recipient) has to agree with the EULA. You (the licensee) would have to destroy the software, including all files subject to the license. For the Photoshop example, edited pictures are presumably not subject to the license, so you wouldn’t have to destroy those. Just the installed software files.

ETA: It sounds like you, or the person you’re talking to, was saying you couldn’t install the software on more that one computer at a time. You should, though, be able to destroy all the software files on the first computer, and install on the second computer.

It certainly sounds to me like the license is transferrable. It’s saying that you are allowed to transfer the license to another person as long as you delete your copy of the software (i.e. both people can’t have/use the software at the same time).

That makes sense. I was working under the assumption that the new owner, the recipient, would be the (new) licensee.

That clause is saying you A, may sell or give the software to B, provided you destroy all files associated with it including those you made from it ( eg: if a paint program, all the images you created with it [ Good luck with that, copyright-holder… ], and it is erased from your computer.

EULAs are neither legal documents nor legally enforceable to consumers. By the same token the consumer cannot legally demand the protection a EULA affords, so the vendor’s statement that you have to pay whatever may be correct.

I would stop using that software. And email the makers to tell them why I would not recommend their software.
How exactly will they know if you are using what you bought on a different machine if you have erased it from the first ? Does it phone home ?

No it doesn’t phone home. That was the vendor’s reason for disallowing the transfer - the software has no means to report a decommissioned license. Here’s the vendor’s reply about the clause:

Does that make more sense?

(By the way, the software comes with two licenses so when I said “2nd machine” in the OP, I should have said “3rd machine”.)

No. That makes no sense at all.

I don’t particularly mind closed-source a la the Good Doctor Stallman, and will purchase it myself when required, but this sort of vrap is one of the major reasons I usually prefer open-source: the licenses are easy to understand *…
He seems to express it in a convoluted way, but maybe he had to since he was answering a question nobody had asked. OK, the same EULA would apply to the second machine although it was not displayed. I’m sure nobody ever thought otherwise.
And the clause doesn’t say that which is explained in his reply at all.
Is the vendor the author[s] of the software or a third party ? I know Microsoft made it a requirement to get permission to use the same Windows on a changed or different computer, but even they don’t actually care if you use it on another computer so long as you only use one computing device = one license.
Here’s an old 2005 essay on EULAS from the EFF. Not safe for high blood pressure.

Dangerous Terms: A User’s Guide to EULAs

  • yes, I said vrap ! it’s a typo for crap, but it looks like a new swearword.

No. I think the vendor is mistaken or that you didn’t understand each other. The clause clearly allows you to transfer the license to a third party and says nothing about running the software on a second computer (probably covered by another clause).

The vendor is a 3rd party, repackaging the IP of the original rights owner. So their policies are probably mostly forced by the owner. Still, they could have done a better job on that EULA clause.