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...

[Propagandhi]

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?

Re:Kind of a stretch...

[nate nice]

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.

Re:Kind of a stretch...

[xander2032]

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.

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...

[ajs318]

It's certainly not valid in the UK, since it would force you to sign away certain rights which the Law of the Land says you cannot sign away. These include the right not to be physically attacked {if you ask someone to punch you in the face, and they do so, they can still be prosecuted for assault}, the right to say no to sexual intercourse {If you do not want to have sex with your husband, but he tries it on anyway, he has committed rape}, and certain consumer protections.

All this, however, is certainly good ammo for this project.

Re:Kind of a stretch...

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Whoa, the flash EULA gives them the right to beat you and sexually assault you? Thats really taking DRM to the next level; I fully expect the RIAA to reintroduce indentured servitude after this bold move on the part of Macromedia.

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?

[ScuttleMonkey]

Since you worded your question so politely I thought that I would take a moment to make my first registered post in many years of reading Slashdot. There are a couple of things that I would like to address regarding this and many other questions like it.

First, the wording of an individual news post and the slant/position that the post takes does not necessarily reflect my views and opinions (nor that of anyone else associated with the administration of Slashdot). The submission is from a reader just like you who decided to take the time to share something that they felt was newsworthy and put their own particular spin on in. I may have editorial control but I am a pretty firm believer in anti-censorship so I try to keep the submissions general 'look and feel' the same. This means that the wording or particular approach to a headline is that of the authors and usually the author (because they took the time to read/submit it) knows more about the subject material than I would anyway.

Second, the topics that I try to post are usually ones that I feel would interest or impact the open source/linux/IT/geek/etc population as a whole. Some are more relavent for your interests than others as I try to keep the topics spread out over time. That being said, the article by itself may not have the strength to stand on its own but I usually hope that the underlying topic/issue is one that will generate a meaningful discussion. This is one of the many things (imho) that makes Slashdot what it is. Being able to pontificate on any/all subjects and get a meaningful response from other (generally) smart people as opposed to most of our daily lives can be a welcome release, even for those trolls who no doubt will flame this reponse into oblivion. :)

Getting back to the article, what I had hoped would be addressed (while I agree with you there is very little chance that Macromedia would ever go after the laptop market, that would be suicidal) is the fact that they expressly outlaw many devices that could "benfit/use" flash. While many feel that flash is not a helpful tool there are usefull applications. In addition to this the line between a "PC/Laptop" and that of a PDA or Handheld of some sort is becoming very blurry (ala PSP, Ipaq, etc) so where are they "allowed" to draw the line?

Well, enough of my soapbox, just wanted to get a few things that have been nagging at me over the last couple weeks out in the open. Flame away!

Best Regards,

SM

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!

You can install on laptops

[mikechambers]

You can install the player on laptops.

mike chambers

mesh@macromedia.com

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.

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.

Finally a EULA compatible with MY needs

[Ben Jackson]

Great, I never wanted to install Flash, and finally that's just what is required by the EULA.

And now the rest of the story

[redsoxunixgeek]

So i guess the sad ending to this story is that 1. Someone took the time to read the EULA amd 2. Read that much into it.

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:Network licenses allow tablet pc's

[Homology]

The license excludes *BSD (guess that Linux emulation does not count) :

(a) "Authorized Operating Systems" means the desktop and standard-laptop versions of the following operating systems:

1. Microsoft Windows operating systems (including desktop and standard-laptop PC versions of Windows 95, 98, 2000, NT, ME, XP Home, XP Professional, and XP Tablet PC Edition, but specifically excluding Windows XP Embedded and successor products thereto),
2. Macintosh operating systems,
3. Linux operating systems, but specifically excluding any embedded version of Linux, and
4. Solaris operating systems.

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:Also of interest

[Wdomburg]

There are at least two free software implementations of flash, one LGPL (http://www.schleef.org/swfdec/) and one GPL (http://swift-tools.net/Flash/).

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

[cahiha]

Second, Flash does not suck resources unless there's heavy animation involved. It certainly doesn't use huge amounts of RAM.

That's the theory. In practice, Macromedia's Flash player has bugs that mean you end up with an unusable web browser and dozens of flash processes running in the background on some platforms.

Finally, whether you like it or not, Flash is the best way to create modern web applications,

Flash breaks just about everything about the web that made the web successful in the first place: open standards, text-based representations, user control over rendering, cut-and-paste, and screen scraping.

Fortunately, even though idiotic attitudes like yours still exist in some backwards corners of the web, there isn't much point in getting worked up about it: Flash is a niche application and won't ever be anything more than that.

Also, have you seen Adobe's SVG plugin for example? It makes Acrobat look small and snappy in comparison.

Have you seen Adobe Acrobat Reader? It sucks: it's slow and memory hungry, while Linux and OS X have fast and compact PDF viewers. Just because one of Adobe's viewers sucks doesn't mean that nobody can do a good job implementing a viewer for that document type.

As to SVG standard, read and weep: SVG Rendering Comparison.

That's FUD on your part. What's there to "weep"? We have a handful of open source SVG implementations that implement a substantial portion of the standard and largely differ mostly in obscure areas. Those open source implementations are being created in addition to multiple commercial implementations.

It will probably be a while until IE has native SVG support built in, but Firefox and Mozilla are going to have it soon. Hopefully, someone will port a decent SVG plug-in to IE.

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

[truedfx]

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.

You cannot legally use the flash specs to create your own player.

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.