Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on June 05, 2004 05:23 AM
Hi, I work with Macromedia, but I'm not a lawyer, and tend to cringe at the thought of translating legal documents like that, but I think I may have some context which could be useful... forgive me if I make up some of the questions here and correct me if I guessed the wrong ones, okay?
(Q) Why can't I distribute the Macromedia Flash Player from my own site? (A) If someone's name, their reputation, is attached to a package, then there's a vested interest in making sure that what's distributed is actually what the creator made. Since 1995 there has been a single point of distribution with known partners, rather than peer-to-peer distribution.
The Macromedia Flash Player is licensed to several Linux vendors for redistribution, and a non-internet intranet can license it for internal redistribution, but this web technology is definitely oriented towards web installation from the creator's own site.
(If Warren has a different Linux distribution and he'd like to improve access for his audience to this Player, then please do contact the Macromedia Flash Player team... it's in everyone's interest to get things universal and easy.)
(Q) What's up with that "we can audit" clause? (A) I can't say with assurance ('cause I don't have a lawyerly license!) but when I've questioned similar types of things in the past these have usually been protection clauses, so there's some way to stop someone who does something truly hideous and bad. Unfortunately, the final words often end up scaring people who aren't hideous and bad. In this case I'd suspect it lays a groundwork to protect against a type of "i'm running your bits in a weird way but you can't check it, hah!" situation, but I wasn't in that meeting, I don't have full details, sorry.
(Q) What's with that "multiple machines" clause? (A) Again, I'm a mere mortal rather than credentialed rule-interpreter, but in the past this type of phrase has been used to protect against someone trying to install on hundreds of machines rather than just their own machines.
If you need anything more solid than this then I'd definitely recommend a typed-out letter to Macromedia General Counsel, 600 Townsend St, SF CA 94103, because they can be definitive in ways that I cannot. The above is my general understanding of why legal language is the way it often is, though, if that material is of any help.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Macromedia Flash Player EULA
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 05, 2004 05:23 AM(Q) Why can't I distribute the Macromedia Flash Player from my own site?
(A) If someone's name, their reputation, is attached to a package, then there's a vested interest in making sure that what's distributed is actually what the creator made. Since 1995 there has been a single point of distribution with known partners, rather than peer-to-peer distribution.
The Macromedia Flash Player is licensed to several Linux vendors for redistribution, and a non-internet intranet can license it for internal redistribution, but this web technology is definitely oriented towards web installation from the creator's own site.
(If Warren has a different Linux distribution and he'd like to improve access for his audience to this Player, then please do contact the Macromedia Flash Player team... it's in everyone's interest to get things universal and easy.)
(Q) What's up with that "we can audit" clause?
(A) I can't say with assurance ('cause I don't have a lawyerly license!) but when I've questioned similar types of things in the past these have usually been protection clauses, so there's some way to stop someone who does something truly hideous and bad. Unfortunately, the final words often end up scaring people who aren't hideous and bad. In this case I'd suspect it lays a groundwork to protect against a type of "i'm running your bits in a weird way but you can't check it, hah!" situation, but I wasn't in that meeting, I don't have full details, sorry.
(Q) What's with that "multiple machines" clause?
(A) Again, I'm a mere mortal rather than credentialed rule-interpreter, but in the past this type of phrase has been used to protect against someone trying to install on hundreds of machines rather than just their own machines.
If you need anything more solid than this then I'd definitely recommend a typed-out letter to Macromedia General Counsel, 600 Townsend St, SF CA 94103, because they can be definitive in ways that I cannot. The above is my general understanding of why legal language is the way it often is, though, if that material is of any help.
Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support
#