Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on June 05, 2004 08:05 AM
First Answer: The desire to control where it comes from is understandable. I don't like it and think it is completely unneeded, but I can understand it. I mean, if I download it from "Joe's Downloads Site" it saves Macromedia's bandwidth, right?
Second and Third Answer: Your explanations are practically true. By that I mean, for all normal situations Macromedia will not be auditing anyone nor worrying about the number of computers Flash is installed on.
HOWEVER, your explanation is *not* what the document says. In accepting the agreement I am not agreeing to avoid doing "something truly hideous and bad" with the software. I am agreeing to give Macromedia the power to audit my equipment on their whim. (With prior notice. How nice.)
It bothers me when someone says that a legal document "doesn't really mean" what it means. If it doesn't really mean that, why does it say that? Answer: Because it does really mean that! You may want to "sugar coat" the meaning but in a legal proceeding, the sugar melts away.
And what's up with the restriction on the number of computers? Isn't the goal to make Flash ubiquitous? I have three user computers at home but I can only install it on one of them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Why does Macromedia care that I run around installing Flash on every computer I can? I can't reconcile that one with my understanding of the Flash business model.
"Here! License our Flash development tools! The client software is restricted to only one computer per person, but we know they will always be at that one computer or will be willing to relocate to that one computer to see your compelling content!"
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Some comments
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 05, 2004 08:05 AMThe desire to control where it comes from is understandable. I don't like it and think it is completely unneeded, but I can understand it. I mean, if I download it from "Joe's Downloads Site" it saves Macromedia's bandwidth, right?
Second and Third Answer:
Your explanations are practically true. By that I mean, for all normal situations Macromedia will not be auditing anyone nor worrying about the number of computers Flash is installed on.
HOWEVER, your explanation is *not* what the document says. In accepting the agreement I am not agreeing to avoid doing "something truly hideous and bad" with the software. I am agreeing to give Macromedia the power to audit my equipment on their whim. (With prior notice. How nice.)
It bothers me when someone says that a legal document "doesn't really mean" what it means. If it doesn't really mean that, why does it say that? Answer: Because it does really mean that! You may want to "sugar coat" the meaning but in a legal proceeding, the sugar melts away.
And what's up with the restriction on the number of computers? Isn't the goal to make Flash ubiquitous? I have three user computers at home but I can only install it on one of them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Why does Macromedia care that I run around installing Flash on every computer I can? I can't reconcile that one with my understanding of the Flash business model.
"Here! License our Flash development tools! The client software is restricted to only one computer per person, but we know they will always be at that one computer or will be willing to relocate to that one computer to see your compelling content!"
#