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."
Exactly. A laptop is a PC, just a mobile PC.
personal computer
n. (Abbr. PC)
A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in an office or at home or school.
A laptop sure as hell fits that definition. I don't see this being a problem in a court of law.
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.
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
Because in closed-service systems, they want to be able to separately license the software to the service providers, liek MS or content providers. If they allowed YOU to put it there, then those content providers will skip the fee.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
It falls under device versions due to the nature of the 'or' statements. In other words:
"you may not use the Software on device versions of the above operating systems, including, but not limited to, mobile devices"
Laptops are included by my reading.
There will probably be some people that will note that, when in contract law, there is confusion or ambiguity as to the terms, then the law tends to side against who wrote the contract. This is not one of those cases imo. It's rather clear, if only because of the 'including, but not limited to' phrase.
A more important question is why they have such a restrictive EULA. What does it serve? You would think they would want use and adoption of their plugins/BHOs.
Furthermore, by screwing up this EULA so royally, it makes it pretty clear point how much they have over end users and developers (since developers might not have an audience with such a restrictive end user contract). Once you adopt a technology, you get screwed in a later version with a different EULA, or even if they decide to revise a current one. Yuck.
IANAL
While the submitter's assertion that the EULA forbids use of Flash on laptops does seem to be a little off-base, this EULA does seem to be a little restrictive (although that's nothing new).
Honestly, I hate watching programs (like Flash) become so commonplace that even when the EULA screws the consumer they continue to be used, simply because they're now so prevalent. If some kind of reasonably open standard were in use instead of Flash we would be able to use it on our mobile devices (PSPs, etc) and perhaps even correct some of the bugs (most flash ads still manage to run my CPU usage up to "99%" on Windows XP).
Honestly, in its present state, I don't think there's any way Flash would become as prevelant as it is. But thanks to the lack of alternatives when it was initially released it has now thoroughly entrenched itself (just like a dozen other common programs)...
Sucks, doesn't it?
And what exactly is classed as a tablet, some tablets also have a keyboard and can function as a laptop, as far as i know they can run desktop windows xp or linux. So does it become a violation when i swivel the screen around? Or is it a violation when it has a touch screen monitor? What about if i plug a touch screen into a laptop
"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
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.
Software is a winner take all game. Once you create the technology and market it well, you dominate nearly without competition and assume ridiculous amount of money. I agree a well planned and executed business/technology plan that relies on open standards, both used and created by you, would ultimately lead to greater assumptions of money, and morality. It can create greater hazard though.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Better yet, why doesnt someone just reverse engineer the SWF file format (if it hasnt been already done) and write a flash player without this crap (not to mention some missing features like being able to disable sound in flash files except where you specifically turn it on)
You don't actually need flash, sure some sites are all flash based, but hey, that's their problem!
I don't run flash here. It's actually quite nice. I don't have to be bothered by those annoying flash based ads.
If someone is stupid enough to put so much flash material into their site so that it's unusable without a flash plug-in, then that's their problem. I personally avoid sites like that.
That's just poor web design in my opinion.
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.
On the other hand, Missouri law doesn't intend to ban all motor boats when it says any motor device at least partially immersed in water should be removed from water as fast as possible. Which doesn't mean you can't be fined by overzealous Police officer for leaving your boat floating. Simply, too general law, by accident embraces areas it didn't intend to.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
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.
I expect that this EULA is not valid in the EU again. So, no problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but an EULA is usually valid to the extent that it does not violate local laws, i.e. the whole EULA is not invalidated even if part of it is.
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.
Ah, but if your friend installs Flash on his tablet, he's not agreeing to the EULA, and therefore isn't allowing Macromedia to audit his machine. So he's fine! Of course, he's not legally allowed to install it, but they're not legally allowed to find out either.
Ho hum for the life of a bear
Software is a winner take all game.
Closed source software is a winner take all game.
Open source software can sometimes avoid this fate
by offering its product for free and being able to produce product without requiring a profit.
Because of this, it can't be forced out of business the way closed source systems can, and it can effectively provide competition even when other companies can't.
I don't think that businesses are going to voluntarily open their standards. If we want open standards, we're going to have to fight for them. Though I would like to see the government restricted to using open standards in their document formats so that future generations would be able to open them, even if Micro-foo goes out of business or a copy of the appropriate reader can't be found... among other reasons.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
While Spanner was about private sadomasochistic activity between consenting adults, the exact same arguments apply to a boxing match between consenting adults.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?