[Gnash-dev] Fwd: Re: [Gnash] Gnash cannot legally play animations created with MM tools?

[Markus Gothe]

I fwd this email to Rasmus Fleischer, who was going to be one of the 
head speakers at EurOSCon (which Rob attended on) on IP-issues but he 
didn't had got the time at that momement.

Rsms: The EULA can be found here: http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/tools/

//Markus

Udo Giacomozzi wrote:
> Hello Rob,
>
> Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 5:17:16 AM, you wrote:
> RS>  Most people up on this subject interpret the EULA as you can't
> RS> *work on* Flash technologies like Gnash.
>
> Can you explain this further? What means "work on Flash technologies"?
>
> Anyway, I can't find any paragraph in my Flash 8 Prof. Licence that
> prohibits me to play any content created with it using a non-Adobe
> software (I read all paragraphs except warranty and such).
>
> There is only one interesting statement:
> "You shall not use the Software to develop any product having the same
> primary function as the Software."
>
> In my understanding this has nothing to do with Gnash as the primary
> function of the Software is *creating* Flash content.
>
>
> RS> That's why none of the Gnash developers use the commercial Flash
> RS> tools at all. There is zero way a license we've never agreed to
> RS> effects us at all.
>
> Untrue. I *do* use and have buyed the IDE. Why shouldn't I? After all
> our (our company's) goal is to use Gnash as an player for embedded
> devices. The player is GPL'ed so our contributions become open source
> too, fine! But of course we want to play closed-source software using
> Gnash (which in my understanding of the GPL terms is okay). And, this
> content will be developed using Adobe's tools, of course.
>
>
> RS>   More reasons to have a truly free Flash player...
>
> Agree. BTW, we *tried* to get a commercial licence for the embedded
> Flash player, which would also have been a reason to switch the device
> processor to something Flash-supported. But it appears you simply can
> forget about that unless you plan to ship 100,000 devices... As we
> develop custom software for devices in low volumes (after all the
> short development time for Flash content is so attractive for us) we
> can't afford that.
>
> Udo
>
>



Rob Savoye wrote:
> Udo Giacomozzi wrote:
>
>> Can you explain this further? What means "work on Flash technologies"?
>
>   I'm not a laywer. :-) I just printed out that link to the EULA, I 
should
> probably have a real lawyer read it.
>
>> There is only one interesting statement:
>> "You shall not use the Software to develop any product having the same
>> primary function as the Software."
>
>   I believe that's one of the clauses people refer to. I've also been
> told there is a reverse engineering clause, although maybe this is the
> same thing.
>
>   I guess the big question is how to define "using the software to
> develop a similar product". I interpret this as meaning you can't use
> Adobe tools at all, neither the IDE, nor the commercial plugin and
> player. Maybe that's too restrictive, but that's the philosophy I've
> been following.
>
>> Untrue. I *do* use and have buyed the IDE. Why shouldn't I? After all
>> our (our company's) goal is to use Gnash as an player for embedded
>
>   I'm going to be more than a little upset if I'm forced to back out all
> the AGG work. :-( Now I do have to go find a lawyer, unless Adobe
> decides to supply us with their interpretation of the EULA, and how it
> applies to developers of Flash technology. This also means I can't now
> do the 0.7.32 release with AGG included until we have a definite legal
> opinion. We would have to have gone through this process eventually, but
> now I have to do it right away... Most of my other thoughts on this
> right now are all four letter words not suitable for a public email list.
>
>   Personally, I believe Adobe has got their head on right when it comes
> to Open Source, whereas MacroMedia never did. So my assumption is it's
> potentially OK to use the Flash IDE and still work on Gnash. Me, I've
> only used Ming to generate Flash movies.
>
>> Agree. BTW, we *tried* to get a commercial licence for the embedded
>> Flash player, which would also have been a reason to switch the device
>> processor to something Flash-supported. But it appears you simply can
>
>   I've heard many horror stories from companies that wanted to license
> Flash for an embedded device. I assume a multi-million dollar fee is
> just a polite way of Adobe telling companies to go away and not bother
> them, and if you're serious, then cough up the big bucks...
>
>    - rob -
>
>

do Giacomozzi wrote:
> Hello Rob,
>
> Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 5:22:34 PM, you wrote:
>>> Can you explain this further? What means "work on Flash technologies"?
> RS>   I'm not a laywer. :-) I just printed out that link to the EULA, 
I should
> RS> probably have a real lawyer read it.
>
> I was asking what *you* meant with it :-)
>
>
>>> Untrue. I *do* use and have buyed the IDE. Why shouldn't I? After all
>>> our (our company's) goal is to use Gnash as an player for embedded
>
> RS>   I'm going to be more than a little upset if I'm forced to back 
out all
> RS> the AGG work. :-( Now I do have to go find a lawyer, unless Adobe
> RS> decides to supply us with their interpretation of the EULA, and 
how it
> RS> applies to developers of Flash technology. This also means I 
can't now
> RS> do the 0.7.32 release with AGG included until we have a definite 
legal
> RS> opinion. We would have to have gone through this process 
eventually, but
> RS> now I have to do it right away...
>
> I understand Gnash developers all do constructive work and are no
> lawyers, but I can't believe this. This would mean when I just
> *install* the MM/Adobe tools (which implies I accept the EULA) I am
> practically prohibited to contribute to the Gnash project?? I would
> accept it that I may not use (in an active manner) the tools to do any
> reverse-engineering. With other words, I cannot write test cases for
> Gnash using the Adobe tools.
>
> So I would end up using a pirated copy of Flash just to avoid the
> licence... ;)
>
>
>
> RS> Most of my other thoughts on this
> RS> right now are all four letter words not suitable for a public 
email list.
>
> You are not alone.
>
> Udo
>

Rob Savoye wrote:
> Udo Giacomozzi wrote:
>
> > I understand Gnash developers all do constructive work and are no
> > lawyers, but I can't believe this. This would mean when I just
> > *install* the MM/Adobe tools (which implies I accept the EULA) I am
>
>   One of the lawsuits I was involved in ate up 8 months of my time, and
> was over the most amazingly stupid misunderstanding... and the entire
> case dissolved eventually when they determined I had actually never done
> what I was accused of at all, so there was no basis.
>
> > practically prohibited to contribute to the Gnash project?? I would
> > accept it that I may not use (in an active manner) the tools to do any
> > reverse-engineering. With other words, I cannot write test cases for
> > Gnash using the Adobe tools.
>
>   Exactly. This has been the interpretation of the EULA for many free
> Flash projects, probably because being extra careful is safest, and
> nobody wanted to pay to have a lawyer to give them a real opinion. Me, I
> just tracked down a lawyer, and we're going to try to get an official
> decision from our end.
>
>   If Adobe would speak up on this issue, it could save us time and
> money... Do they truly support Open Source, or do they need to maintain
> a monopoly through draconian licensing schemes ? I'd give them the
> benefit of the doubt, based on past actions. But I sure would like to
> know beyond the shadow of doubt...
>
> > So I would end up using a pirated copy of Flash just to avoid the
> > licence... ;)
>
>   Exactly. To get screwed by doing the right thing is stupid. All we're
> really doing in a way is making Flash more wide spread than it already
> is by supporting platforms Adobe doesn't. They should be encouraging us. :-)
>
> > RS> Most of my other thoughts on this
> > RS> right now are all four letter words not suitable for a public email list.
> > You are not alone.
>
>   It's times like this I hate the way the computer industry has gotten
> with IP issues. More reason for projects like Gnash! My hope is that
> with the release of Tamarin, Adobe isn't concerned about IP issues like
> MacroMedia was. If this turns out to be true, it'll actually let more
> people contribute to Gnash. We would have had to dealt with this issue
> eventually, so it might as well be right now.
>
>   Just to be clear, I totally appreciate the AGG contribution you made
> to Gnash. It's been very fun to have Gnash running on my Sharp Zaurus
> lately. :-) (screenshot at http://www.welcomehome.org/gnash/frog1.jpg)
>
>         - rob -
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnash mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature