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
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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
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.