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."

Comments

Kind of a stretch...

[nebaz]

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.

Re:Kind of a stretch...

[110010001000]

Please don't let facts and logic creep in here. What do you think you are doing? We need ad revenue- have you seen how LNUX is doing lately? The best way to increase revenue is to post "controversial" non-stories that will quickly bring out the knee-jerk slashbots out of the woodwork.

Re:Kind of a stretch...

[lightyear4]

Of COURSE the EULA doesnt intend to exclude laptops. That would be, very simply put, utterly idiotic. As instinct and facts suggest that laptops outsell desktops, it would be beyond foolish to interpret the EULA in this manner; it would exclude a fast growing majority of computer users. Surely some poor paper pushing paralegal just wasnt thinking.

Re:Kind of a stretch...

[Spruitje]

Of COURSE the EULA doesnt intend to exclude laptops. That would be, very simply put, utterly idiotic. As instinct and facts [com.com] suggest that laptops outsell desktops, it would be beyond foolish to interpret the EULA in this manner; it would exclude a fast growing majority of computer users. Surely some poor paper pushing paralegal just wasnt thinking.


I expect that this EULA is not valid in the EU again.
So, no problem.

Re:Kind of a stretch...

[Mr. Slippery]

The fact that this law exists or that you gave a link to a decision on a bunch of homosexuals who were into BDSM torture.

Is it the homosexualaity or the BDSM that upsets you so much?

Homophobia is no more an acceptable form of intolerance than rascism or sexism.

BDSM is a game. It is not torture. More actual harm is done in your average high school football game than at the average "play party". It's really no more than taking the way you might bite your lover's earlobe and racheting it up several notches.

Where are laptops mentioned?

[Com2Kid]

News flash:

• non-PC product or any embedded or device versions ...

Laptops are not "non-PC" nor are they embedded or device versions of yada yada yada.

Who is scuttlemonkey?

[alfrin]

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.

Re:Who is scuttlemonkey?

[AaronLawrence]

Thanks for responding, SM. I feel the submission might not be as interesting as you thought, but I think your decision making process is reasonable and useful, and I don't think Slashdot editors need to be so constantly slammed. So, hang in there :)

Re:Who is scuttlemonkey?

[Malor]

Thanks for posting your thoughts on how to be an editor. I disagree with them, and I'm going to tell you why (of course), but it was nice of you to take the time to post them. It's *extremely* difficult to have a conversation ABOUT slashdot ON slashdot; this website is probably the least-reachable and most insulated from its users of any I read. It used to be my homepage, and I used to be a subscriber; neither of these are true any longer.

First, this particular article is fine. The writeup may be wrong, but it also may be right. It's arguable, so it's a good post. My criticism isn't pointed at this specific submission, but rather many others.... a pattern, not a specific incident.

I think, as an editor, you should be using your brain. That means... read the submitted article(s), and make sure the blurb is actually correct. You're an editor. If you're just passing through things verbatim, without even checking them, you're not editing. I'm not sure what you'd call that process, but I'm sure 'editing' is the wrong word.

I think you guys have a responsibility to be sure that the blurbs on Slashdot are more or less correct. I don't mean perfect. But it is very obvious, sometimes, that the editor who posted a given article didn't even bother to READ or THINK about it in any way, shape, or form. Your supposition that the submitter knows more than you do is WRONG. You should be supposing exactly the opposite... assume they are idiots until they prove othrwise. You'll be right a lot more often than you'll be wrong.

You also, I think, have a responsibility to pass through the original meaning of someone's post, and to correct it if the original submitter complains. I've seen at least one case where the submitter was furious, because the editor (I think it was Michael) removed a word or two, and completely changed the meaning of what he or she had written. It made it look like the submitter was arguing an exceptionally stupid position, and it was never corrected.

Finally, and this is the reason I stopped subscribing and switched my homepage, Slashdot needs to come up with some kind or mirroring system. The Slashdot effect isn't as bad as it used to be, but it's still a deliberate denial of service when it's pointed at small sites. At the VERY least, you should be getting the site preloaded into Coral, and monitoring the remote webserver... if it chokes, then swap the main links to the Coral cache to give the poor sap time to recover. You have a responsibility with where you aim your readership, and all I have ever seen is weaseling and moaning about how it's a hard problem. And in all the years I've been reading this site ... almost since the very start (I got an account quite late) ... that has never changed. It was crap then and it's REALLY crap now, with Coral having solved 99% of the problem for you already.

If and when you guys come up with a system to be sure that you don't take out small sites more than briefly, and when you're showing some better editorial abilities, I'll cheerfully subscribe again. And yes, I realize I'm just one guy, and it'd be like twenty bucks a year. But right now, I am just barely hanging on here... very, very nearly ready to give up on the site completely. I don't see the quality of posts here anymore, and haven't for years. I am morally certain the reason you're not attracting as many smart posters is because you're posting stupid articles. If you guys use your brains, and expect the same of your submitters, then I believe the posters will, over time, do likewise.

Make the stories smarter, and expect intelligent behavior from your editors. The readership will follow.

Re:Who is scuttlemonkey?

[LnxAddct]

Wow, excellent post. I wish /. editors would comment more often, especially if they are all that insightful. Honestly it sometime feels like you guys try not to be a part of the community, maybe it is so you can't influence the story or comments in any way. I think a large chunk of Slashdot would not only appreciate to hear from the editors more often, but would also benfit from it. One more thing, a lot of posters flame you guys to no end, silence on your part (albeit it is taking the higher ground) does nothing to help it. I was so impressed with your post that I made you a friend, and I can only hope that you, CmdrTaco, etc... will start posting regularly. The last time CmdrTaco posted a comment I think was when he proposed to his wife years ago (or actually it may have been when he asked about satellite internet).
Regards,
Steve

Re:Who is scuttlemonkey?

[pchan-]

Okay, I'm going to do it. I'm going to be one of those people that complains about Slashdot. I'm going to hate myself in the morning.

The parent poster brings up good points, and I hope the Slashdot ops will take a look. If you're going to be lazy about it, at least implement this technical solution: put a "submitter is on crack" button on each article. If that button gets pushed by a million people, for fuck's sake at least go back and review the story. Or article moderation, but that's much more work.

Please, let's stop the misleading, sensationalist headlines ("Modified Prius Gets 250 MPG"), as well as poorly worded, often factually inaccurate summaries (see this story for reference). They demean us all.

Thanks for your time.

Big fucking deal

[mnemonic_]

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.

Re:Flash sucks anyway

[Flounder]

Yeah! Screw Java, JavaScript, DHTML, CSS and HTML! If I can't read it with Emacs/Vi/NotePad, it's worthless!

So, what's reasonable? Zero?

[NotQuiteReal]

... you shall reimburse Macromedia for all reasonable expenses related to such audit.

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.

Flash doesn't suck

[spoco2]

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.

Re:You can install on laptops

[buckhead_buddy]

Mike Chambers of macromedia wrote:

You can install the player on laptops.

Technically, this doesn't appear to be a problem, but legally, that's another story.

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.

Re:You can install on laptops

[ebrandsberg]

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.

Also of interest

[JavaRob]

This part caught my eye... is this legal?

You shall not use the Software to develop any software or other technology having the same primary function as the Software, including but not limited to using the Software in any development or test procedure that seeks to develop like software or other technology, or to determine if such software or other technology performs in a similar manner as the Software.

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:

You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network.

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.

Re:i'm one of the first....

[aaronl]

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.