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
Laptops are not "non-PC" nor are they embedded or device versions of yada yada yada.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
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.
so don't use it.
Hopefully Flash will eventually go the way of the tag.
Oh well, what the hell...
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.
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
/)
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.
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!
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.
My friend's Windows XP Tablet edition is specifically listed as a platform that's in violation of the agreement as well as requiring an edition of Microsoft Windows that's not in the approved operating system list.
Being a doctor, this agreement to allow Macromedia to audit his machine puts him in a precarious legal position over the privacy agreements with patients, whether you actually carry out such an audit or not.
First off, I believe you should put your title of General Counsel below your name, as you MUST be general counsel to provide legal advice to people outside of the company relating to your products (and yes, I did Google you and know your title). To quote the license:
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; provided, however, that, notwithstanding anything contrary contained herein, 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. A license for the Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers.
Now, I believe that many laptops are also tablet PC's now (convertible) and are ALSO mobile devices (I would consider anything with a battery and weighing less than 20 pounds to be mobile realistically), Linux runs on game consoles, people play games on most PC's now (so what is a gaming pc), etc. As such, your statement is a) probably in violation of your companie's own policies on making public statements as an empoloyee of the company about legal issues relating to the company and b) totally out of whack of what the license itself says. If you wish to provide good flash developer relations for Macromedia, I suggest having your lawyers revise the license ASAP to provide clarification, as this opens up pretty much everybody to be in violation of the license.
I'm also going to call out another provision of the license:
You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network.
I would consider downloading this software from your very own servers (which are computers on a network after all) a violation of this provision if taken literally, and as such, anybody that even HAS a copy of it they downloaded would be in violation.
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.
Wow, you sure have a passion in hating Flash.
:-) Cheers!
First of all, the article is, in typical slashdot manner, not just misleading, but plain wrong. Laptops are PCs, not embedded devices, so you're not prohibited in using Flash on them. You may dislike MM, but they are not stupid (unlike a part of the crowd)
Second, Flash does not suck resources unless there's heavy animation involved. It certainly doesn't use huge amounts of RAM.
Third, the parent poster uses the lowest form of FUD: he's lying. By default, a flash movie does NOT have access to microphone or webcam - you have to explicitly enable this, and this is a per-site setting. I won't even discuss the cookie nonsense.
Fourth, it's proprietary, because MM wants to stay in control, but the specs are readily available, as is the source code of the player.
There is nothing to stop you from making your own Flash content generator or player. Have a look at OSFlash.org for a list of Flash-related Open Source projects.
Finally, whether you like it or not, Flash is the best way to create modern web applications, a lot easier than AJAX, more widespread than XUL.
As to SVG standard, read and weep: SVG Rendering Comparison. Also, have you seen Adobe's SVG plugin for example? It makes Acrobat look small and snappy in comparison. It will take at least 5 more years until you'll be able to use SVG across browsers and platforms.
And, come on, this is Slashdot, you may hate flash, but can you resist the girls of Virtual Bartender?
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.
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.
You can install the player on laptops.
Yeah, but why would you want to? I find Macromedia Flash to be a poorly written piece of software. Before I get around to uninstalling it, it regularly gets in some mode where half a dozen Flash-related processes run in the background and bring my machine to a crawl. And all that for a bunch of worthless content that usually doesn't even scale properly.
Thank you, but I don't give a f*ck whether I "can" or "may" install Flash on my laptop or my desktop; the sooner I can uninstall it, the better.
Hopefully, SVG will put Flash out of its misery; the world has suffered from it long enough.
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.
This posting says the license states:
You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network.
How do you install the software in the first place? And what if you use network storage?
This brings up a very good point.
What is the definition of a PC?
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"
What they're saying is that you can't demand royalties if they implement what you suggest with your submission.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Flash is not the "best way" to create web apps. It is simply one of the ways to do so. Any design technique that locks out (by the Flash license, by lack of viewer, by lack of all html readers having a reader, etc) a significant amount of the web is not the best way. The difference between things like AJAX, HTML forms, and Flash is that AJAX works on almost everything, including screen reader systems, HTML forms works on all but the very first browsers, and Flash works on IE, Mozilla, and those few browsers that emulate one of their plugin interfaces. That means Flash is the least likely one to work.
As another poster pointed out, Flash breaks everything that made the web the web. You remove accessibility completely, you remove search completely, you remove UA controlled presentations completely. Part of the "appeal" of Flash is even to actively prevent people from getting the SWF file offline. But hey, we don't need useful markup, screen readers, offline storage, searching, font scaling, search engines, or anything else - because bad web apps programmers and incompetent site designers have decided that Flash is the next messiah. Here's a good for you, do you think Google would work if everything was some stupid Flash-based site? (Hey, lets index hundreds of millions of sites that use vector graphics for all their text! That should be doable, if we have a few hundred supercomputers, excellent programmers, and most people use the same technique - yeah!)
FWIW, I agressively avoid Flash only sites. The format has its place, but creating sites and web apps are not that place. I also avoid sites that have Flash sound, Flash menues, heavy Flash advertising, or that place all their content in Flash. Learn to write HTML instead of half-assed Flash sites (and by half-assed, I mean sites written in Flash).
Anyway, laptops are PCs that are also "mobile devices". The license at the time the article was submitted prohibited any "mobile device", which would thereby prohibit laptops.
You are right that MM isn't stupid. They managed to take a niche product and get it used all over the Internet, and then convince people like you that it's essential! That's good marketing, right there. It still doesn't make *Flash* something worthwhile, necessary, or good.
Furthermore, the term that makes you liable to repay them if they decide to audit you is outright lunacy. That being a known condition might even make more than a few admin and PHB types demand the software be removed from their corporate networks! Who would want the possibilty that MacroMedia could do such a thing to you? Sure, they *probably* won't, but you can't be absolutely certain!
BTW, SVG isn't for writing sites in, either.
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.
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.
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.