Salem

You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Mortal Moments Inc.
their affiliates and their respective officers, employees, directors,
agents, licensees (excluding you), sublicensees (excluding you), successors
and assigns from and against any and all liability, costs, losses, damages,
and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses) arising
out of any claim, suit, or cause of action relating to and/or arising from
(a) your breach of any term of this EULA; (b) your violation of any rights
of any third party; or (c) your use or misuse of the Software Product.
Your indemnification obligations set forth in the immediately preceding
sentence shall survive the termination of this EULA.

Does that mean I'm not allowed to attack MM in game?

WARNING: BY INSTALLATION AND/OR USE OF THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT, YOU
MAY BE INSTALLING INTO YOUR UNIT SOFTWARE THAT IS ALLEGED OR MAY BE
ALLEGED TO COMPROMISE THE SECURITY OF YOUR UNIT, ITS OPERATING
SYSTEM AND FILES.

Now this sounds scary

I must admit, we did negotiate the use of the existing PDX-drafted EULA in part of our deal with them. I believe the latter may have been referencing all the alleged security concerns with using webstart applications that do allow the kind of access to your computer that the client allows. I could certainly see a situation where a custom client with malicious intent is developed by somebody other than us, and the issues that would arise if even one person posted said client, and person downloaded said client from our forums. Although I am far from capable to discuss the details of such legal matters so I'll just have to trust the attorneys on such matters.

That all being said, you can at least have some piece of mind that we made a few tough decisions to NOT implement things that would change your client and/or force you to redownload your client to make the first patch any more complicated than it had to be.

Wait.

You mean people actually read these things?

Of course we do.

Although I must admit I simply ran a diff against the previous eula

Kandarim wrote:Of course we do.

Although I must admit I simply ran a diff against the previous eula

I should probably have made that blue, it doesn't sound quite as sarcastic as intended when I read it back.
Nothing weird in there from what I saw though, just the usual legalese "You can't screw us over if our product doesn't live up to expectations".

Feone wrote:Wait.

You mean people actually read these things?

I've seen EULAs in the past where one of the points was that you agree to provide free oral sex at any point of time.
Knowing how MM loves to troll and ***** people up I thought I better check it.

Feone wrote:Wait.

You mean people actually read these things?

Yes I always go through these. Most of it is standard so its a skim. There are a few sections now and then you should read.

Procne wrote:

Feone wrote:Wait.

You mean people actually read these things?

I've seen EULAs in the past where one of the points was that you agree to provide free oral sex at any point of time.
Knowing how MM loves to troll and ***** people up I thought I better check it.

I have caught a few eula's that tried to slip in things like "we deserve the right to randomly scan your hard drive files remotely". And weird **** like that. Works when only 1 in 1000 people even look at them. I usually dont