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.
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 ]
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?
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
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.
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"?