There aren't legal requirements for many (most?) pieces of software. You can release a piece of software without any terms of use at all--that's perfectly legal. So I don't buy the idea that complexity is driven by legal requirements.
The legal problems come in when the software is discovered to have some flaw or an undisclosed interaction with some other system, and the class-action lawyers swoop in to eviscerate the publisher.
Lots of open source software has gone for decades with the following license, without the wrath of god falling on them:
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
It seems to me like you could just cut the paragraph starting with "Permission" and the words "and this permission notice" from the next paragraph, and you'd have the same protections, but for a closed-source project.
So yeah, I'm going to go ahead and continue to believe that these EULA's are definitely not written with the user in mind.
