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.
You can install the player on laptops.
mike chambers
mesh@macromedia.com
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
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.
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.