Slashdot Mirror
Flash EULA Doesn't Fit the Times
cphoenix writes "The latest Flash player license seems to forbid downloading their player onto a laptop. From the License: "you may not use the Software on any non-PC product or any embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, including, but not limited to, mobile devices, internet appliances, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, PDAs, phones, web pads, tablets, game consoles, TVs, DVDs, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks or any other consumer electronics devices or mobile/cable/satellite/television or closed system based service." This comes at a time when laptops are outselling desktops. And to add insult to injury, "You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software ... In the event that such audit reveals any use of the Software by you other than in full compliance with the terms of this Agreement, you shall reimburse Macromedia for all reasonable expenses related to such audit."
I don't know if it explictly bans laptops.
The previous section of the EULA says (bolded emphasis mine)
You may install and use the Software on a single desktop computer that
has a Windows PC operating system (including desktop PC versions of Windows
95, 98, 2000, NT, ME and XP (Home and Professional), a Macintosh desktop operating
system, a Linux desktop operating system, or a Solaris desktop operating
system;
So at first glance, it does appear to be "desktop" machines, but then look at the next section.
you may not use the Software on any non-PC product or any embedded or device
versions of the above operating systems, including...closed system based service
This seems pretty clear that they mean specialized versions of any of the above OS's, like an XBox or
other console, or "closed system" (which appears at the end above). True, they do mention the word
"mobile device" in the list of things after the "including", but it also says "non-PC product, or any
embedded or device versions" of the OS. Is there any difference at all between laptop and desktop versions
of Windows XP, for example? If they really had meant to ban laptops, they would have had the word "laptop"
in the list of devices that are explicitly excluded.
Personally, I'm not a lawyer, but the interpretation of "no laptops" seems to be a very literal interpretation,
and I know this was kind of done as a "look how stupid this company is" attitude, but I don't think
a) a court would interpret this to mean "no laptops" or that b) Macromedia would take that stupid an interpretation
of the agreement.
Having said all that, companies have surprised me in the past, however.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Hello! New business model!
"Hello, Dewey, Cheatem & Howe Attorneys at Law"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Laptops are not "non-PC" nor are they embedded or device versions of yada yada yada.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Why the fuck haven't draconian EULAs been outlawed? Seriously, is the world /that/ fucked up? Okay, silly question.
and what is he smoking? Last time I checked a laptop IS a PC. By mobile they obviosly are talking about phones, pdas, and such. Macromedia isn't stupid enough to kill a majority of the market for nothing.
Flash came pre-installed with my laptop. Can you even be responsible for violations that happened before you even had the computer shipped to you? I don't know if i was shown an EULA or not before i saw my first flash video.
404 File Not Found
The requested URL (yro/05/08/29/2339216.shtml?tid=185&tid=17) was not found.
If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.
so don't use it.
Hopefully Flash will eventually go the way of the tag.
Oh well, what the hell...
Laptops.
This is an absolute outrage!
I for one will not rest until flash is banned in all forms on all computers more powerful then an abacus.
So Macromedia fucked up their EULA. Yes, it's funny. No, no one's going to get sued. Macromedia will fix it in 3 weeks and life will go on.
I think that they're not intentionally blocking laptops, but rather trying to exclude anything other than "the living room PC", and work PCs. Personally, I think this is stupid, and it's gonna give them bad press. When more developers see that fewer devices support the web pages they put so much time into, they're gonna stop using their products.
Come on! They should know that PDAs, cell phones, and game consoles are getting online in higher percentages - why can't they use the flash viewer? Only reason I can think of is that they're trying to come out with a $$$ client for those devices... ouch.
--- "To ignore race and sex is racist and sexist!" -- Jesse Jackson
Does anyone know why they would bother to change the license to exclude these devices anyway?
My personal guess is that this is aimed at getting some money out of the whole "next generation cellphone multimedia content" thing.
They most likely just want to make sure they can charge the mobile providers if (when) they start rolling that kind of thing out.
The thing about banning laptops is just silly and not at all the intention of the agreement, as anyone can see from reading the text. Nor would any reasonable individual interpret it as such, but I am rather surprised by the ban on mobile devices/game machines/PDA's/Can Openers, and etcetera anyway
It would seem that they would want to get their player on as many platforms as they possibly could. I guess possibly they want to limit the range of devices to those which they have explicitly designed and tested for so as to avoid a bad reputation when it doesn't work? What else am I missing here?
well why did they even make a version for my g5 If it's illegal to run it on non-PCs.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
Somebody actually read all that crap before clicking OK?
Maybe somebody is hoping?
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
You can install the player on laptops.
mike chambers
mesh@macromedia.com
adobe buy macromedia or somrthing like that this week?
-knowles
Aren't there more than enough real legal issues to worry about without having to make up far-fetched silliness like this?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
True, this laptop doesn't seem to exclude laptops, but what is a company that boldly advertises 98% browser penetration doing limiting their product from even further growth, when its popularity is an essential selling point in the first place?
I read the frontpage summary of this article prob 4-5 times, just trying to see WHERE it said that laptops are not allowed?
/.???
/. is heading the kuro5hin way.....
I'm no genius and I would assume that the people who approve of publishing stories are smarter than I am - but why are such trivial and redundant articles being published on
Sorta get the feeling that
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants.
The EULA does not mention laptops or anything similar to laptops (closest would be handtops but even the tiniest PC computers by Sharp and Sony are still called "sub-notebooks").
It's replacement is called [SVG!
So this means I can't install Flash on my Xbox or PS2, both of which run Linux?
Not that I actually care, since I hate flash anyways.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
people to say you should never install flash on a computer if at all possible. flash is a horrible horrible proprietary piece of junk. it's main uses are to bypass the adblocking and cookie-deleting people. it by default sets up your microphone and webcam to spy on you. it sucks resources like there's no tomorrow and without a 3rd party plugin, you cannot refuse to allow certain instances to run.
believe me, there's virtually no reason for an end user to install it. if you want to view animations, just download them and view with an external standalone player (search for one). and websites that require flash, i never visit. no matter how urgently i need to view something, i go without.
i would like the svg standard to replace flash sometime soon... what's the current progress, anyone know?
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
License conflict of the day... If you get a distribution license for your company or intranet which is free, the license terms are here. http://www.macromedia.com/licensing/distribution/l icense
That allows tablet pc's and what not, but not embedded devices.
Someone there needs to get their licenses straight.
If they give away millions of copies for free, legally speaking, wouldn't that be a good argument for them to NOT BOTHER auditing any other use?
Don't they make money selling the authoring tools, not the clients?
Seems like the correct amount for reasonable expenses is zero.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
They said no non-pc products.
Mac is forbidden! I guess they made those osX versions just to tease the mac zealots! =)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Great, I never wanted to install Flash, and finally that's just what is required by the EULA.
I think that the real issue here is not the laptop thing but the audit- how will they audit you?
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
I've hated that shit since 1998 - socially, it drove me into being one of few artists in a geek community, for the simple fact that I value information clarity and ease of navigation as opposed to bloated whiz-bang billshit... the sort of stuff the kids I went to artskool with are conditioned to be all about, almost to a pavlovian level. It and Macromedia have fueled many an argument - greed and moneyhats and buzzwords on one side, legibility and clarity on the other.
Doesn't help that flash runs like shit on the mac.
A shitty EULA is one less reason to use the thing, and another arrow in the "flash sucks!" quiver.
Though I suppose if there's enough of a stink, a FOSS solution wile rise up.
So my X-box... Running an intel x86 chip and linux, with a keyboard and mouse...
Is it a desktop yet?
The only justification is for some web games. Maybe.
Macromedia is going the way of the dodo.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I mean come on. It seems like this is a classic troll, but this one made it all the way through the editors. I feel like telling the submitter and the editor to RTFEULA.
So a laptop is no longer a PC? Macromedia isn't that stupid. Give me a Break.
EULAs don't fit out times.
So i guess the sad ending to this story is that 1. Someone took the time to read the EULA amd 2. Read that much into it.
...I'll just use AJAX and DHTML. Seems to work faster on most machines anyway.
What do you need Flash for, anyway? There's a reason the tag died an ugly death. 90-99% of flash usage is for animated distracting advertising, so why the fuck add epilepsy to your web browsing experience?
Remain calm! All is well!
..."Church" of Scientology.
If another person says "well you can't use it on OS X because a Mac isn't a PC" I'm going to have to shoot them. Honestly either you're an idiot or a dick, either way you don't belong here.
I guess if you're the idiot, then it would be fitting that you didn't read in the EULA where it says "macintosh operating system" or the like.
Visitors go away, counts go down, and those with Flash-based sites decide Flash-based restrictions suck and kick them to the curb.
People seem to think bringing landsharks into problems are the way to solve them. Something most weenies seem to forget or haven't learned is: the best way to beat the system is to play by the system. translated: play by the rules to the nth degree and stupid things have a way of blocking things up such that those who have the most at stake suddenly see the light, throw a tantrum, and remove the obstructions.
The problem is too many people try to fight the system and look for exceptions in the rules. That's a lost cause. The rule makers spend so much time sewing up loose ends they forget just how bunged up the system can be if people actually follow their rules.
Whilst I'm drifting off-topic....
this is a tip for those of you who are in repressive workplaces. Don't fight it, adhere to it like a fanatic. They're counting on a fight. Everyone bitches about something and they figure that's your bitch forte.
I don't mean to interrupt or anything, but you can download the PocketPC version of the flash player from Macromedia at the following URL: http://www.macromedia.com/software/devices/product s/pocketpc/downloads/ That would suggest to me that they'll let you put it on PDAs, mobile devices, yatta yatta.
HELLO? FLASH PLAYER IS FREE. Licence or no licence - if it's free, it's free. Macromedia cannot legally touch my laptop. I just won't give it to them. So what if i install flash player on my mobile phone. What does it prove? Innovation?
game consoles, TVs, DVDs, gaming machines
Boy, this gets my goat.
I'm sure they mean to say DVD players, however they screwed it up and said DVDs, which clearly refers to the medium, not the player.
Why does this happen so much with DVD players? You don't hear people refer to a CD player as a CD, do you?
You hear this enough in advertising, but you'd think Macromedia would know better.
I say it all hinges on the definition of the word "Is"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
From the gist of the other comments, I gather laptops aren't actually excluded. Regardless, I hate flash and choose not to use it.
Someone hates these cans.
it's the poor usage of it that can indeed suck.
Flash itself is fine and dandy, and allows a lot of functionality within a browser that wouldn't otherwise be there.
It's platform independant and allows us (ie. who I'm working for) to code a very nice application that can be distributed within companies with no extra software needing to be installed on their pcs.
Bad uses of nice software does not bad software make.
Surely there is a better source of news for nerds. Slashdot should be re-titled to "Questions from idiots/Old stuff from other sites" With the number of people here and the advertising $ they bring in; surely they can afford at least one competent editor. Editors do a lot more than grammar checking you know. And even that is asking too much apparently. Why do so many people congregate here? Is there really nothing else out there? ok flame away...
If something exists that does not need a creator (god) then why must the cosmos need one?
Or are they just taking higher precautions in the security of their product, in hopes of avoiding furhter piracy or theft of it?
Either way, even for those who legaly purchase the products, will be subdued to inspections (if I understood the article correctly). This might be found as irritating or invasion of privacy (though legaly justified in legal agreement), which might cause customers to look for an alternative source.
Please input your opinion on this matter.
Is why they would want to restrict what you can use it for at all? You'd think that more popular = better image = better? I could understand restricting the dev kits but why wouldn't they want people to be able to play flash on non-PC devices?
"You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software ... In the event that such audit reveals any use of the Software by you other than in full compliance with the terms of this Agreement, you shall reimburse Macromedia for all reasonable expenses related to such audit."
They get to randomly audit me and make me pay for it? I don't think so.
I don't really care what the EULA says. You know, the whole "blood from a turnip" argument. The only thing they can get from me is my birthday and I'm not using it anymore.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
Topping out around 10 lbs., I would argue that certain models of Dell laptops could be considered not to be a "mobile" device at all. Maybe this is all a secret plot to get Dell an even larger share of the market! Oh yeah, and Dells come with some version of the Windows OS, so Bill Gates is probably behind this too. I'm starting to see all the angles now...
By the way, I know they obviously didn't mean to exclude laptops. I'm not a flippin idiot.
Yeah! Screw Java, JavaScript, DHTML, CSS and HTML! If I can't read it with Emacs/Vi/NotePad, it's worthless!
/. is.
The fact that this is not recgonized as humor shows how truly lost
#EOF
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
Do not forget to mention that the latest flash plug-in is not legal for use within a corporation. You must pay to use the client, and their price is not what you call competitive. The same thing everyone is talking about here applies to corporate use as well, meaning it can only be installed on one corporate machine. Flash is the devil, if you work in IT make sure any apps you use do not use flash. I would also recommend that no one flash at all on any website. Macromedia is worse than Microsoft in the licensing department. I'm not going to mention what company I work for, but there are rumors that macromedia is demanding to be paid an undisclosed amount for every machine that has flash player on it here.
I can't believe that someone read the EULA much less noticed a problem with it.
What is this world coming to? Probably someone looking for an easter egg.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Truth is what the submitter suggests is probably not the EULA's intent.
On the other hand I would quite happily have a EULA on my computer targeted towards web developers: You may not run your CPU intensive, non-standard flash in my browser - if you can't do your site in HTML, I will quite happily avoid it.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Microsoft is helping draw this line. Linux, on the other hand, is not.
Microsoft quite clearly makes operating systems targetted at very specific niches. Their mainline Windows OS is targetted at desktop PC users (including laptops). Their server line of Windows OS is targetted at servers, and from the Macromedia EULA, it seems that these should not support Flash. They have their two embedded lines with WinCE and WinNTe which are also not supported under this EULA. From the main branch of the Windows OS line, there is also the WinXP MC-edition and WinXP Tablet edition, both of which are explicitly prohibited by the EULA. Macromedia says their software can be run on any device running the desktop version of the OS, and Microsoft says, "Ta-da-, here is exactly what we define as a desktop version OS, and here is what is not defined as such."
Linux, on the other hand, blurs the line to a great extent. On the one hand, it's widely used as a server OS, so Macromedia says it's probably OK to go ahead and allow use there. It's also used as a desktop OS, so of course they want to allow that. But then, as you mentioned, you start to get into things like specialized device ports which function just as well as their desktop OS counterparts, but are running on non-traditional (i.e. non-PC) hardware. Macromedia doesn't want that. They want to make sure they can get a per-device royalty on any software released to those devices. My guess is that they've probably got some good contacts with Montavista who are helping OEMs get "Flash for Linux Devices" running on their hardware.
Now the community looks and sees it is just a matter of hacking into the ROM and excising the Flash binary, a few magic incantations, and voila! they've got themselves something that can be put onto any Linux device for that particular processor. When that happens, Macromedia will be able to bring up the EULA and say, "Hey, we told you that you couldn't do this. And we don't seem to find you as a valid licensee. So please say hello to our little friend, The Courts."
My guess is that this is just the beginning of a wider restriction in licensing of closed-source software on open-source operating systems. Slowly it won't just be "device-targetted versions" of the OS that aren't allowed, but any version of the OS that is not provided from an approved list of vendors (Redhat, SuSE, Mandrake) who have made it clear that their operating systems are not just tarballs of code (Debian) but rather are specifically designed for target platforms.
That said, I am left scratching my head that they would consider either the WinXP for TabletPCs and WinXP Media Center edition unusable platforms. These are both very short diversions from the mainline Windows OS trunk. Much more "enhanced" versions of the OS than actual separate versions.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
May i install it on my ibook ? on my macmini ? these are "non PC" devices, so you'd better clarify that.
Please.
the answer to these macromedia dickheads is simple - don't use them. i've never had any NEED for flash, ever. no one does.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
if a court would allow a business/individual to sue macromedia for the inconvience and the stealing of privacy? Basically, they are trying to inspect your system in the same fashion that MS does (check your EULA; MS has rights to your system and all that is on it, including your data).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I wonder if doing OpenLaszlo was a good idea for my project after all...
OpenLaszlo
Damn.
Now, if only they would forbid using it on desktop PC's, the world would be a better place.
Macromedia has just gone out in a flash.
Flash is dead, zack.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
On /. this will probably get modded Troll but ... Flash is great for certain things. Want to design a GUI quickly? Sure you Java guys can speed through some tight code, but for the rest of us who don't have time for the 'extend applet call-me-Ishmael' Java coder mindset (or if the client wants their simple calculator during this calender year) Flash will have you up and running in a day or two.
Want to tell the client that their site will look the same across browsers without 2k of javascript and lingering uncertainty? Code for Flash 5, embed the fonts and cash the check.
Need some quick dancing spaghetti at the top of the page? No problem and small too.
Want to make a really annoying intro without a skip button? You have the power.
All in all, a worthwhile tool.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
the parent's post is informative, unlike the GP's post which appears to have been written just to grind an axe.
The Stone Age did not end because humans ran out of stones. - William McDonough
PC = Personal Computer
It really doesn't matter whether the computer is based on x86 or PPC.
I'll I've ever found flash to be of use for is corprat porn.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Hell even moreso than a desktop. And the license says you can't use it on "non-PC" systems.
No sig for you!!
C'mon.
Anyone who thinks, for even a second, that this EULA is intended to prevent notebook usage of Flash is being deliberately obtuse.
Let me let you in on a little secret: a lot (if not most) of the people on the Flash Player team at Macromedia use laptops to *develop* the player. (I was doing so earlier today, as a matter of fact...)
If you want to complain about the EULA being overly restrictive, yadda yadda, fine, fair game. But this kind of bogus argument doesn't really help your cause -- it just makes you look like a bonehead.
Ya, you'll read that rights..>> . Its a material world baby.
Shake that boody!
Quack, quack.
yeah that one really bothers me, never seeing the name and then almost every story on the front page is from him and a UID of 55. Honestly my first thought was that somehow slashdot has been hacked by an editor from bizarro world (except these inflammatory stories are common now). In fact when I clicked to check his/her (I don't know) profile I received an expired security certificate warning from Firefox, strange eh.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
"(btw, this is my first "flame" post I have every done, most of the time I'm very civil)"
Please check the ample reading material on proper ways to flame someone before attempting it at home. I know, you already have tried to flame - but it came off as much too polite. And if you consider your post uncivil, I'd hate to see your enthusiasm.
I think both of you made decent points and understand both.
Considering your improper usage of the word "flame" however... well, you're dishonoring millions of damn good flamewars here on the internet(s).
I can't use the new Flash Player? No more bandwidth-hogging Absolute Vodka ads and badly written Web games?
I might as well give up my Internet connection.
He is correct: the grandparent is plain lying (or deluded).
Flash does NOT allow access to webcam or microphone without explicit user approval.
Period.
I've seen the code.
That's forbidding *black-box* reverse-engineering. Sure, no decompiling, etc... but they're saying that if you use the software as intended, to run a Flash file, but you're keeping track of what it looks like, you're violating their agreement. Wow.
This part is neat, too:
Obviously that first part sucks if you want to, say, backup your computer, make a "base install" ghost, install Flash onto all corporate computers, etc.. But look closely at the second part: when you download the installer, you are already breaking their EULA. Sweet. And if they audit you ("Did you download this? You're in the server logs. By the way, Macromedia pays me $2,000 an hour."), you have to pay them for the privilege.
Man, those lawyers are really earning their keep.
I think we should *all* write concerned letters to Macromedia, asking for an in-writing caveat to the license indicating that we are indeed allowed to download the Flash player from their server, to our computer, over a network. This stuff is amazing. Those lawyers must be working overtime.
Go to the Macromedia site and put in a support question about how to remove the Flash Player from your laptop so you can comply with the EULA.
It attracts marketers like flies to shit. By turning it off, I avoid 99 percent of obnoxious ads.* It's just too easy. I especially like that little F that Flashblock displays - it's like a big F*ck You to marketers.
*The remaining 1 percent can be made less annoying by setting looping graphics to loop once only. That way my epilepsy doesn't trigger just because some marketer with MS Paint wants me to think I can get free Ipods.
Heck... I thought the EULA was only for people who could afford the software.
The EULA is more often than not a "scare tactic" against pirating to those who actualy "play by the rules." IMHO, if you deside to purchase and use the software in a legitimate way, you don't have to realy worry about it. If you pay Macromedia for Flash, and you use it... they won't give a rats' butt if it's on a laptop. They only care when it's a direct exploit to bypass giving them money. (like using one licence on more than one machine)
And even then, unless you have a big buisness, you're not worth their legal fees anyhow. /shrug
-Quixxilver- "Where am I going?
Here's their email support form. Not for any childish flames, of course, but if you don't like something a company is doing you should let them know.
Instructions are already there. (Found by about 15 seconds of googling...)
n dex.cfm?id=tn_14157
http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/i
This brings up a very good point.
What is the definition of a PC?
I've been wondering if there is ever going to be something that is a competitor, that's opensource. So far, I've not even seen a poorly done substitute. There's things you can do with Flash and/or Director that can't be duplicated by anything else out there, open source or not. Of course, the same things could be done, just not in a way that would be remotely competitive, both in the time it takes to create, or the amount of programming skills it requires. Which seems crazy. I mean, all in all, it would be no bigger a project than OpenOffice or Scribus or GIMP. Create a GUI, write a backend that translates what happens on the GUI into C or C++, then pump it through GCC and output an .exe or linux executable. It wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be much harder than, say, gutting Netscape's code and making Mozilla. It's a big hole in multimedia creation on linux. I mean, I can make 3D models on linux, but nothing that compares to a Flash movie. At least, not in the same amount of time.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
Someone actually read the EULA?
Last time I looked Laptops are classed as PC's (Excepting of course the iBooks)...
By including mobile devices then pda, phones etc I think they're just trying to cover all the bases and some of them several times over.
Apart from that using the definition of a PC from wikipedia:-
"A personal computer or PC is generally a microcomputer intended to be used by one person at a time, and suitable for general purpose tasks such as word processing, programming, or game play, usually used to run purchased or other software not written by the user. Unlike minicomputers, a personal computer is often owned by the person using it, indicating a low cost of purchase and simplicity of operation. The user of a modern personal computer may have significant knowledge of the operating environment and application programs, but is not necessarily interested in programming nor even able to write programs for the computer."
You can get away with including Mac's in the definition of a PC if you use the proper definition rather than automatically assuming the IBM PC way of thinking.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Really guys.... And in other news, New Orleans gets leveled by a hurricane. Grrrr..
Ya know, ignore that comment I made above about "no childish flames". I'd like to see them "publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate, and reformat" something really puerile.
Reading it literally says one thing, and someone from Macromedia says it means something else.
Well, if it meant something else, why didn't they write something else?
threadeds blog
i'm one of the first people to say you should never install flash on a computer if at all possible.
If the computer is not intended for websurfing, by all means, don't! But it's rather essential in opposite case...
flash is a horrible horrible proprietary piece of junk.
Actually, the specs are open, it's just that all free flashes suck even worse.
it's main uses are to bypass the adblocking and cookie-deleting people.
It can be adblocked just the same. The flash cookies counterpart can be deleted all the same.
Design a better mousetrap and the Nature will design a better mouse.
it by default sets up your microphone and webcam to spy on you.
Plain wrong.
it sucks resources like there's no tomorrow
Less than Java applets. Animation in Flash is less of CPU hog than same thing in Javascript. It offers better compression than GIF anim (though there's the constant player overhead, so use only in case of big animations).
and without a 3rd party plugin, you cannot refuse to allow certain instances to run.
You can't allow ANY instance to run without a 3rd party plugin (THE flash player). If you install one extension or two, what's the difference?
believe me, there's virtually no reason for an end user to install it.
I won't. There are sites where ALL the navigation is done in Flash. Sure, they suck, but they often contain essential info you need, so you're forced to use Flash against your will. I've seen sites where the "enter" button is made in Flash. Sites with non-skippable flash intro. Sure, they suck. But you can't just shun all the info they contain because of method of presentation. You DO need flash. Off by default.
if you want to view animations, just download them and view with an external standalone player (search for one).
Except the ones that require to be run from a webpage because they are too big and load in parts, except the ones protected against copying, except the ones that provide website navigation, except the ones that just break in standalone player etc, etc. And the standalone player comes bundled with web plugin.
and websites that require flash, i never visit. no matter how urgently i need to view something, i go without.
So, you got that new laptop, and you need the video adapter drivers. So you will remain in 640x480x8bpp@60Hz, because the drivers are accessible only through a flash page? uh... That's rather fanatical.
i would like the svg standard to replace flash sometime soon... what's the current progress, anyone know?
As for scriptable SVG, no development kit like one for Flash on the horizon. And Inkscape is far from really usable yet.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Ive never seen the need to download flash yet, ive always figured sooner or later i would want it to see some site.
going on later now and havent had any site seem that worthwhile to install yet.
Obviously, Macromedia does not want to give their software away to play on palmtops and other 'embedded' devices. They want people (directly, or indirectly through the vendor of their machine -- like sony, in the case of my clie) to pay for the ability to play flash 'on the road'. They have to make money from this someway, and this is something they have traditionally done -- the flash-player for Palm-OS was not free, IIRC.
Now, lots of 'embedded' devices are strong enough to run 'desktop' OS's (Intel has said their latest embedded processor will be able to run Vista), and Linux is simply everywhere. If they want to do / keep doing this, they need a clause like this in their EULA.
Jan
As others have said, it clearly doesn't apply to "laptop personal computers". All the confusion seems to be from the very inexact terminology that presently describes handheld or embedded computing devices that aren't PCs. But lets look at why MM is restricting usage on these other devices.
It's gotta be because they have a fast-growing and very high potential business in licensing Flash players to be embedded on your cell phone, PDA, music player or what have you. They don't want those manufacturers to have a way of not having to license the Flash player from MM. If you can just power up your cell phone the first time and the manufacturer has it set to go download a free Flash player (assuming there were a free one that was compatible) that would cut into MMs OEM licensing revenue.
--- Mark
I would take a moment to make my first registered post in many years of reading Slashdot.
Who are you and where's the real ScuttleMonkey? And will you be selling your account on eBay anytime soon?
Install the Flashblock extension for Firefox.
This will make Flash clips appear as empty boxes with a "play" button which starts the Flash for that clip.
The problem is that Flash is the De Facto standart in web animation. Even if SVG is to become the standart, Flash will still be used for old clips made in the pre-SVG period.
However I do agree that flash is crap. Is sucks resources on even the most powerful PCs and 4 or 5 flash banners make a page impossible to use.
This Flash EULA has been around for some time, I came across it months ago when trying to deploy flash to a network of machines.....
It does appear that hardly anyone reads what they agree to!
The Ginger Dog
But I would think that if you are under the network license you where not subject to the end user one (Well atleast on installs done under the network one).
Then again IANAL.
It should not hold up in court, because these kinds of restraints on post sale use have never been valid, at least in the EU, and I believe, not in the US either. One should also consider writing to the European Commission, Competition Directorate, for a ruling. It is a wonderfully clear case.
why is this funny?
Why does my post history abruptly stop? I want to laugh at the stupid things I posted as a kid.
I also hate any licence that gives someone else permission to look at anything on my PC - who knows what else they will take away!
We need a project to write a set of flash compatible read/write libraries that the various flash related products can use.
You should mention that these EULA's or licence-wanna-be-contracts are void in Europe.
So we are not bound to this piss take.
Macromedia has never acknowledged or fixed any of the 20+ exploits for flash so anyone with brains would uninstall it, not seek to install it.
Basically, the main use of flash seems to be to put annoying ads on web pages. I block flash, javascript, animated gifs, popups and popunders. Not only is my browsing faster (still on dialup at home, sigh, and will be until Telecom NZ offers acceptable broadband options), but pages are much more pleasant to read without floating overlays, pulsing animations and sounds etc to distract.
Not so worried about cookies, but *hate* the things that chew bandwith and, much, worse, irritate and annoy me while I surf.
That's funny, because it's on my WM2003SE PocketPC right now. Guess where I got it from? Macromedia. Guess how much I payed for it? Nothing.
I think I'll uninstall it, though. It's buggy as hell.
Hey, but what with GPLFlash (http://gplflash.sourceforge.net/)? After it's release we will not have to bother about some crappy EULA. GPLFlash aims full compatibility with Flash7 and because it's GPLed it could be used even in your toaster.
Or other Unix-like operating systems that aren't Linux or Solaris? Nice of them to cut us out of the loop, even though we run flash on the same desktops as Linux and Solaris.
Flash consumer devices...
Macromedia wants to sell end user licenses to 'embedded flash' viewers, or DVD players that use some kind of flash chip to play flash games on dvd players.
Sneaky &*&*@&@&!!~~~~~~~~~!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
If the advertisers are stupid enough to push flash garbage at you make them pay. Enough of the flashing 7 color disco styled ads.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Hello, I am a Troll!
Go and focus on Microsoft, at least they are open about stuff unlike Novell, Sun and RedHat et al:
http://www.channel9.msdn.com/
Or read what really matters when it comes to Flash:
http://www.kaorantin.net/
hippocrates strive on this site, really...
"You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network." So if I install flash using "emerge netscape-flash" and it downloads flash from a distfiles mirror, then that mirror is in violation. As for me, obviously I am making a copy of the software when it is downloaded, so that would make me in violation..? Up to today I've use flashblock and I rarely see any flash except when those crappy made-in-flash sites and I click the play button. But after reading the news terms, I did "emerge unmerge netscape-flash" and I will keep my computer flash-free until they come up with a license which is not totally stupid..
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Adding injury to insult would have fit better, if you think about it (even though it's not a 'phrase,' at least it would make sense).
EULA or should it be 'EU' End Users.
2 License Grants
b. You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time
No i do not agree.
2 License Grants
c. Your license rights under this EULA are non-exclusive.
Importers of copyright products under licence can be vulnerable to unscrupulous competitors who infringe their rights and gamble that, by the time an overseas supplier gets involved, they'll have achieved their goal of market entry.
This is not really adequate to protect business interests, tradmarks, copyrights, what about are licence lefts? what can we do without restriction.
The real thing that annoys me is that i helped Macromedia port the flash player to debian, was called project mustang.
I have seen enough, and am removing all traces.
to kill all those annoing flashbanners, its very good
I don't want the virus. I just want there to BE a virus, so I can say "your honor, frankly I don't remember reading the terms of that EULA, but I had this virus... and it clicked on damn near everything for me!"
Uncivil Obedience: The Tactics and Tales of a Democratic Agitator by some guy named Borovoy. .
The book was "done" on CBC Radio, years-ago, and the "Aha!" the guy had that making Authority's abuse obvious essentially . . torqued it against itself. .
Though that is ONLY true if the society one lives-in cares enough about appearances & still has a free-ish mass-media ( once the majority are in Enforce-mode, adding more enforcing-abuse won't work: see the Soviet Socialist Imperial Establishment System for example of that . . . )
IPTables enhancement Fail2Ban bans cracker-login's
EULAs are full of this BS that noone complies with - or could comply with. They are just backdoors for the companies. If MS would go by and start enforcing their EULAs 100% they'd lose huge amounts of popularity within week.
This EULA part is all about having a crowbar against the Flash Player spreading on to mobile devices. MM want's to make money selling the plattform to providers. I actually managed to install Flash 6 on to a PDA. Together with the Pocket Windows help system, of which Flash Player 6 is a part. They want to be able to go after people who do this large scale. That's all.
Oh, and btw, those EULAs are unenforcable in most countries.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Kyrie and Amen, Brother! /. Couldn't have done it better. Nice work.
No mod points, sorry.
A nice, gritty riposte to the usual Flash FUD on
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
At the risk of "slashdotting the competition", can you suggest some other sites that are similar, that can provide me with news blurbs and discussions relevant to geeks like me? And please don't suggest that one a$$hole's site whose name I forget, but who repackages other peoples stories and makes a lame comment, hoping to make a few bucks off of other people's work.
Where are the good sites???
A high number of Macromedia employees from the audit department have been found in a dumpster near Langley, VA. Unnamed sources in CIA say that they were forced to let them audit CIA computers due to the Macromedia Flash player EULA.
Only the stupid rely on what they assume is the other party's intent, rather than the wording, when dealing with a legal document that explicitly invokes liability for noncompliance.
That goes double when the other party is a corporation, because there is no guarantee of continuity in management personnel, much less their intent.
And that certainly goes triple when the other party is a company that is currently being acquired by a different one, and thus absolutely certain the people in charge even in the short term future won't be the same ones as there are when the agreement was entered into.
To give you an analogy -- Caldera, in 1999, was a perfectly nice Linux company. Imagine the kind of case one could face from its current incarnation, the SCO Group, if you'd licensed something from Caldera with the belief that the intent behind the license wasn't exactly what the wording said, and used it based on your belief of the intent instead of in compliance with the wording.
So, looking at this EULA, I see it clearly and specifically authorizes use only on a "desktop computer". A laptop is not a desktop computer; thus, the EULA does not appear to allow me to put it on a laptop. It goes on to ban a number of specific devices, but with the phrasing "including, but not limited to", so the absence of the word "laptops" from the list does not serve to mean they are permitted.
Now, I am perfectly certain today's Macromedia management is not going to come after me for installing on a laptop. But I cannot be certain, and no one can guarantee me, that the future managers of Adobe won't be Darl McBride-alikes. That being the case, the potential liability more than swamps the incremental benefit of using the latest version of the Flash player.
And this, people, is why we shouldn't be relying on proprietary formats. Just because we can use them today doesn't mean we can tomorrow.
... why I install prefbar and turn off Flash. If a site doesn't want to show me it's content, it's probably not worth reading anyway.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Jeebus, you do have some nerve. Outing yourself as an MM employee amongst a crowd of slashdot insaniacs. Your standard uninformed FUDers are cueing posts allready. I'l get some Popcorn and watch the show :-) .
Aside from that:
As someone who makes a living developing RIAs (mostly with Flash) I have some things to say - maybe you can pass them on to the right places?
1) Cudos to the actionscript 2 team. AS2 finally is a solid PL and does good work.
2) The IDE (I'm currently using MX 2k4 Pro) is bad. Really bad. Almost as bad as director.
-I cant delete workplace layouts, the menu just gets larger. No renaming aswell.
-no matter what window has the focus, the stage is allways in the back
-the editor sucks. Take it out or replace it with homesite or something
-when I open a file and look at it hard, the star pops up. I'd actually like that to pop up when I've actually changed something on that file. It's called "undo-stack". Maybe the IDE Team want's to check out the concept? It's been almost 10 years now. They could go and ask the AS2 team. They seem to be on top of things.
- Either memorize workplace layout by file or by selected layout. But don't do a half-assed mix of both. Workspace management in general is really bad. Especially on a Mac. For a tool that costs 800$ this is very bad performance. Pass it on.
I could go on for a while but those are the most pressing.
Thanks.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I don't know what's going with software companies, but aren't they missing something? I mean, if they write a piece of software and a user acquires it legally and can find other "reasonable" usage for it on other devices or with other systems, etc. What is the problem? So long as they say they are not responsible for usage they don't cover or intended. So someone got this on a DVD player, or an Home Entertainment Device, shat is the deal? I really don't get it.
I think it will be too late when these companies realize how much they have been restricting their users. But as open/free source software get better and start to fill those gaps, only the stupid will stick with those EULA. Even other companies will be switching to the less restrictive versions becuase which company wants to be open to audits and then the protential violation of the terms?
When I worked at a media company that was bought by a mobile phone network, the suppliers of football photographs declared that although we had rights to the images for internet use we did not have rights for "mobile" use, despite the fact that the mobile phones were merely accessing a website over the internet, using GSM or GPRS.
Its what happens when lawers don't understand technology. Or... perhaps playing dumb can be profitable.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
most eulas have a clause stating that by your installation and use of the program you have accepted it.
"Macromedia: Get over yourself. You're good, but not that good."
I'm hoping Adobe changes Macromedia's backward personality, too. Of course, Macromedia must be really bad if Bruce Chizen can fix the company. (Mr. Chizen looks more than a little crazy in that official photo, as though he were a fox assuring chickens of their safety.)
Mr. Chizen is the CEO who bought Adobe millions of dollars in bad publicity with the handling of the Skylarov situation. For example:
"Bruce Chizen -- President, Director, CEO Adobe
John Warnock -- Co-Chairman Adobe
Charles Geschke -- Co-Chairman Adobe
"... These are the individuals that could have had Dmitry home last July. Instead they thought it would be fun to play with Dmitry, Adobe's reputation, and the money of Adobe's stockholders.
Mr. Chizen also headed another effort to get bad publicity for Adobe: Dealing with the originator of Killustrator in a socially inept way.
Mr. Chizen followed that with a socially backward way of dealing with Chinese piracy. Adobe may ditch China sales. This time, someone else at Adobe tried to mend the damage by saying Mr. Chizen was wrong.
Thanks to a miracle of modern science called the Flashblock extension, Flash embedded in a web page appears as a sylized F in Firefox. A welcome relief since almost everything done in Flash is a childish demand for undeserved attention.
--
Trying to make one book explain all of life makes some people crazy enough to kill.
Someone set us up the alternative for great justice!
It's true that you don't need Flash, and it's probably true that most Flash content is either ads or web-site-in-a-SWF design, neither of which is a good idea.
However, Flash is still a useful tool if used to provide small, interactive areas as part of a web site. The BBC News web site often does this to good effect: right now, they've got an animated guide to how hurricanes form as part of their coverage of Katrina. You can still read the news without viewing the supporting material, but it's interesting and there if you want it.
The BBC generally seem to get this sort of thing right. Earlier this year, they had a couple of neat Flash applications presenting information about the election on a map as it came in. They often provide backgrounders for their main stories like the one I linked to above or a similar one explaining tsunamis a few months ago. They certainly get my vote for the "most effective use of Flash" prize.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
As I understand the EULA, installing flash on a STB requires a license and ist not free. So far, so good.
Has anyone tried (and succeeded) in obtaining a license for such uses from macromedia? My attempts have been unsucessful so far. They have been surprised by our inquiry about a license. So far, we don't even know if they sell licenses at all, nor what they cost.
Macromedia has made some errors in writing thier EULA, however it seems pretty obvious why they're specifying so clearly what CAN install the player.
They make bucket loads on selling the player onto solid state chips inside OTHER devices.
I was recently at a MMUG meeting in London and the speaker mentioned Macromedia closing deals with 3 of the 4 top mobile phone manufacturers.
Can you image the figures Macromedia can expect to pull in by licencing a solid state version of it's plugin?
They're not just interested in mobile phones, what do you think your touch screen operated refridgerator/washer-dryer/Tivo/XBox360/PS3's interface is going to run on? Windows? Bah!
Not if Macromedia can help it.
Yes, I'm Anti-Microsoft, but then again, I am, Anti-Everything.
Let's say a saint came down and used a VERY strict EULA, but never prosecuted over it.
Then a... well let's go with Devil but I was thinking MS or RIAA had a very loose EULA but would prosecute EVERY time someone went over the line?
Notice that the EULA doesn't matter as long as the agency doesn't constantly come down hard on the people, I don't know of many times Macromedia really has come down hard, just having a rough EULA isn't enough to make me worry.
Welcome to Slashdot, where bashing Flash is always hip. EULA discussion, what a good opportunity.
Anyhow, forget about this whole EULA crap, this is just another opportunity to say that Flash sucks and everybody who uses it is doing bad "webdesign" and you won't buy from them.
or shouldn't be anyway.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I made the mistake of installing Flash in Forefox on my Debian machine. To date Ihave not found a way to get rid of it. To be honest - its a pain in the ass!
HEADLINE : Macromedia Employee Calls a Slashdotter a Bonehead Over His Opinion of Macromedia's Bone-headed Paradoxical EULA.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Have people actually adhered to, much less read most EULA's?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
This all sounds vaguely familiar - remember a little complier company that caused all manner of outcry by writing a license agreement that said you couldn't use their complier to write an operating system. They sufficiently annoyed the developement community enough that it took years to get back the trust - and they never really recovered. You may remember the name - Borland?
Lawyers should not be allowed into the creative process.
I use links you insensitive clod!
In the event that such audit reveals any use of the Software by you other than in full compliance with the terms of this Agreement, you shall reimburse Macromedia for all reasonable expenses related to such audit.
So if I'm in violation when they do the audit, I just pay for the audit? If only the IRS worked this way.
Think back. You can't use the net for very long, especially on diallup before encountering this intrusive trojan--flash. It is a half megabyte turd that infests many sites, especially news sites; and news sites maintained by monopolists like CNN and its holders most of all. CBC used to use, and so did many others, the '.vdo' video format. It was a little small, but it got the job done and it was free for the general public to use and make their own with small effort and a gentle learning curve. From their the news industry went to the '.ram' format which took more space and was a whole lot LESS friendly. I'm thinking that this was an early 'flash' format. Flash was called that because its authors wanted for folks to thing that it was 'flashy'. Soon many websites demanded it as a prerequisite for viewing their site. Creative was one such site. Star Trek's main site is another. The application seems to go through an evolution more often than linux distro upgrades, and probably does so to stay one step ahead of its 'percieved opposition'. It and 'windows media' and 'media player' have also become de facto trojans, as has all '.pdf' files over version 4. Not all these malwares are silently handed out; only 'flash' seems to prefer to sneak into your machine like 'gator' and 'xupiter' and the 'coolWWWsearcher'. If your computer is default configured, flash will install itself silently, especially in WinXP systems that even seek to deny you the ability to even SEE the files in the system directories (they have the guts to display the phrase: "You don't need to see the files in the system directory...."!). All these malwares come with 'EULA's that say the software: is not worth the sheet of paper to print the license; can destroy your system and you have no recourse; and threaten to beggar you and your heirs to indentured servitude (via lawsuit and Bush's new 'no real bankruptcy for non rich private citizens' law); and seek license to freely fish your system, modify your system, delete your files, regulate your system, etc. --without your consent or knowledge. New laws make it a crime to even look seriousely into your own hardrive. YOU paid for it, but YOU don't own your own computer.
An easy choice should be to: not use sites known to hand out flash; remove flash from your computer by any means necessary; go back to using win2K or older or linux depending on your skill level; lock up your systems except in Michigan where it is illegal to oppose a spammer or use a firewall on pain of prison.
There are news sites that do not use flash or window media player 9, 10 or whatever (they always have an excuse for demanding you to 'download the newest spyware'). Canada Broadcast, www.cbc.ca, is one such site. Its videos will play on old windows media players unlike monopolistic American sites controlled by soulless morons. If you are one of those who bought a five hundred dollar wonder that you know nothing about and does not have a real operating 'system disk' but rather a set of 'restore CDs' that not only restore a patched proprietary licensed version of XP but also a crapload of malware and salesware and spyware specifically engineered to a cunningly crafted downsized motherboard and peripherals system with patched PROMs that work with nothing else, then you are stuck and should consider giving up computing or buying a real computer while you still legally can unless you are too poor to. You should also get some training or hands on experience setting up your own operating system from scratch using anything but XP as this one demands secret downloads and permissions that may in the future not be forthcoming when you have system failures for any reason---or they may come with and expensive string like a new even more intrusive 'operating system' like 'Vista' or a high monthly 'subscription' fee for 'easy monthly payments' of say, a hundred bucks or so.
hmm.. I installed the official Flash Player 6 for my Pocket PC from Macromedia's website (Now Adobe) and it seems to work just fine. Nothing to see here - move along...
Actually, it does suck. Maybe it's fun to use and lets you do fancy things, but it undermines the things about the world wide web that make it fabulous. Things like openness and interoperability and compatibility and true platform-independence (working on three platforms is not platform independence).
Flash stifles innovation and hurts the web, by locking people into a proprietary standard, bringing us back to the situation we had before the web revolutionized communication. It's exactly this kind of move that should signal to people that Flash is bad. Now it's illegal to install Flash on a cell phone? You've got to be kidding me. One of the greatest features of the web is that it allows people to consume information in whatever way best meets their needs. Flash defeats that. It's time to start demanding a better, open standard, like SVG.
BTW, anyone who assumes that everyone has Flash and doesn't provide an alternate path through a website is flagrantly incompetent. *pfft* Okay, I'm done now.
By reading this post you agree to turn over all of your assets to OSTG.
If you need the flash plugin for a website firefox will give you the option to automatically install it. So you skip the EULA entirely. No agreement and none the wiser if someone sets the computer up for you.
Macromedia are beginning to strongly push another product version of Flash called "Flash Lite", which is a mobile version of their Flash software. The verbage in this EULA may just be a rather low method of encouraging portable device developers to embed this version of Flash Player instead of the full version. This would allow consistency in development practices between the two platform types/markets, and more importantly give the product some chance of surviving in a world where the restricted devices see an ever increasing level of performance, drive space and power.
Or, they're just eee-vil. Hard to say, really.
Don't accept the EULA.
Delete the product you downloaded, and don't use it.
If you don't like the license, don't use it.
This is not YRO it is CRTDWETPWTP "a companys right to do whatever they please with their product"
Quote: "No Macromedia dealer, agent or employee is authorized to make any amendment to this EULA."
In Section 11, General near the end of the EULA.
Flash works just fine under Odin (a Win32 Wine-alike for OS/2), and Innotek would create a wrapper for it so us OS/2 folks could run it as a "native" process, but the license explicitly limits the platforms on which Flash can be used.
Because of this, Innotek is unable to legally release their wrapped version of the latest Flash player for OS/2.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
"In the event that such audit reveals any use of the Software by you other than in full compliance with the terms of this Agreement, you shall reimburse Macromedia for all reasonable expenses related to such audit."
Umm.. Kiss my ass!
All the more reason to get rid of Flash.
There is no mention of FreeBSD, however; FreeBSD is a PC based product.
FYI: FreeBSD uses Linux emulation to run Flash.
If the lawyers did regulate themselves that way more than half of them would suddenly be out of work.
A well-written contract doesn't guarantee nearly the future lawyer work tnat a poorly-written contract does.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
But I thought Everyone loved Magical Trevor!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Yet another reason not to use flash.
As if the others were not enough, this just puts it over the top.
A company being able to audit my computer? Over my dead body.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What exploits? Please enlighten us.
I just read through the EULA and there is alot the end user in this case has going for them. Loopholes are primarily interpretations of worded contracts/laws. If you look at the EULA, it never defines desktop which a contract or binding document would like it does with software. So one could interpret desktop to mean a device which resides on, or is operated from the top of a desk.
The EULA also fails to specificaly name laptop as a device that is prohibited from installing on.
Whether or not this would jive with a group of lawyers breathing on your back, I have no clue. Pointed out to a judge in defense at a prelim hearing, it might be enough to save your neck from going to trial, as it's worded to be very vague.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Since when is a laptop computer not equivalent to a desktop machine?
If this were (hypothetically) to be contested, all I would (hypothetically) have to do is insist that my laptop machine is placed upon a desk, thereby making it inescapably a desktop machine by any sane linguistic definition.
End of story.
From MM http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/in dex.cfm?id=tn_14157
To manually uninstall the Macromedia Flash Player plug-in on Windows, Linux, or Solaris:
1. Quit the browser.
(Netscape, CompuServe, or Opera)
I use mozilla, mmm trying to quit non existant browser.
Now what is wrong with an uninstall script ???
Alright, I did some researching into this.
The good thing is, this jargin is only limited to the Flash Player. It did not show up anywhere else.
I sent some messages to Macromedia concerning this, but I probably won't get a response back for a day or so. Either way, I'm assuming that this issue is merely a major typo and not company policy for Macromedia. My reasoning is thus:
1. Macromedia already has agreements with the movie industry to use the Flash Player as a video navigation system (that stuff that comes up at the beginning of some DVDs for the menu).
2. Macromedia provides support to several phone companies to develope support for web-enabled cell phones, including T-Mobile and Verizon.
3. Macromedia has several marketing campaigns that not only SHOW the Flash Player on mobile devices, but are geared towards using the Flash Player on mobile devices for productivity and collaboration demonstrations.
I think it's safe to say that an error in the EULA has been caught, but it's not a Macromedia policy. I'm certain a lot of this will get cleared up with their merger with Adobe.
If this is NOT a typo...then the only explanation is that we're not reading this right, since I'd find it hard to believe that Macromedia would violate their own EULA, aside from shoot themselves in the foot in the current market.
99% of Flash's use is only for those annoying pop-up/over advertising anyway.
Hopefully most people won't bother with it now so Macromedia's own greed will make Flash (and therefore those adverts) less ubiquitous.
I don't have any problem not producing versions of their products in Chinese until China recognizes the concept of intellectual property and enforces it. Fair Use is one thing, compaies set up to mass market copies is another.
Strong Mad - 2008: "I PRESIDENT!"
Non-free software carries all sorts of anti-user limitations which are often quite clear if one takes the time to read the license for the program. To me, this underscores the need for a Free Flash player and Free Flash development kit so that we can play the Flash files out there without giving up our freedom to share and modify the software. It looks like the hackers at GPLFlash could use some assistance.
Digital Citizen
Flash really isn't used for anything other then annoying ads which blink, scroll, flash and are difficult to stop. I never install a flash player. I didn't realize so many people still used it.
EULA's being restrictive is nothing new. Though I can't say I'm trhilled with the prospect of them being able to arbitrary "... audit your use of the Software for compliance ..."
Though forgive me if I'm a bit navie, as I do not use Flash much at all, but isn't SVG http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/ a possible option?
Granted its probably not as robust, and it might not do everything that Flash can, but its a start.
That's not the issue. The issue was that Mr. Chizen said something very inadvisable. His statement was immediately retracted by more sensible people at Adobe.
--
If you support dishonesty and violence, don't say you are Christian.
It's violating the W3's guidelines on web accessibility.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/
The original post gives the impression that Macromedia recently changed their EULA to be so restrictive - but have they really? When did they change it, and what was it before, and if it was changed then to which versions does this EULA apply (is it retroactive)?
What part of "including, but not limited to" do you not understand?
This signature has Super Cow Powers
The same Borland that first tells you that the free version of JBuilder does not require you to register with them but then hide the download behind, yes, a registration page that even accepts e-mail addresses like bob@bob.bob?
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
License Restrictions
1. You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network.
This would seem to indicate that you can't even download it to install it, after all, that would constitute transferring it over a networks.
from the nerds who read EULA's.
There is one huge problem with mirroring, and it has nothing to do with technical issues. Specifically, copyright. A lot of the stories that Slashdot links to are copyrighted. While most of their authors would probably be a) grateful not to be DoS'd, and b) fine with the content showing up somewhere other than their site, SOME would take exception. And guess what? The law would be on *their* side, and it could be nasty. I guess you could argue that sites with an exclusionary ROBOTS file wouldn't be mirrored, and that might work... but a lot of legal things get figured out in courts, and forging a precedent can be a really nasty and expensive way to do stuff, even if you win.
;-) Though I can't claim to have been a reader in Chips 'n Dips days, I was on just after Slashdot went live. Wish I hadn't waited so long to be a subscriber, I'd be freakin' double digit! *sigh*
So. I think that calling it a deliberate DoS may be stretching things a little. Perhaps "inevitable DoS". Is it perfect? Hell, no. But it works most of the time, and ISPs have learned to throttle even intentional DoS attacks reasonably well -- and virtually ALL ISPs are familiar, to one extent or another, with what "Slashdotting" is.
In other words, I find a lot of your critique to be valid and interesting, but I do think certain elements should be given more thought.
-Slarty
P.S. And yes, I have a lower UID than you.
I used to work at (TLA-bigcorp) and the lawyers there were of the view that they would frame the most one-sided agreements imaginable.....becasue they could. Any user that objected always had the option of not buying the software. Any large customer would be able to afford lawyers to ask for a variation on the license (and they often did).
Only boring people are ever bored.
the EULA states:
"you may not use the Software on any non-PC product or any embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, including, but not limited to... [blah blah blah]"
This therefore only restricts all non-PC-products or machines with Operating Systems that are embedded or device oriented. Everything listed under their word "including" is subordinate to the first clause (i.e. non-PC product or embedded or device OS versions).
It doesn't matter if your using your PC as a kiosk, or a DVD player, or a set-top box, or a mobile device, or a handheld, etc. If you run on standard PC hardware and your OS is a desktop version OS then this EULA doesn't restrict your use.
That's what "including" means. It means if your PC (be it a laptop or other) doesn't fit the definition of the group they're restricting (non-PC or Embedded OS or Device OS systems), then it isn't included - even if it's mentioned as being included. By not fitting the original definition of the group, any mention of being included does not apply to you.
When people are appointed editors they are given a new UID (generally lower than 100) and a new moniker.
My little site.