Flash EULA Doesn't Fit the Times 574
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."
Kind of a stretch... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kind of a stretch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kind of a stretch... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kind of a stretch... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
All this, however, is certainly good ammo for this project [sourceforge.net].
Re:Kind of a stretch... (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:3, Informative)
No; the parent over-generalised. You can consent under certain circumstances, such as to allow surgery or as part of a properly conducted sporting activity. See here [bmjjournals.com] for example. Note, however, that attacking someone in a way that is not covered by the accepted rules of your activity, and therefore does not have the implied consent of the other party, can get you in a lot of trouble. Also, there are further leg
Re:Kind of a stretch... (Score:4, Interesting)
While Spanner was about private sadomasochistic activity between consenting adults, the exact same arguments apply to a boxing match between consenting adults.
Re:Kind of a stretch... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
And now the rest of the story (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Kind of a stretch... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Kind of a stretch... (Score:3, Interesting)
Closed source software is a winner take all game.
Open source software can sometimes avoid this fate
by offering its product for free and being able to produce product without requiring a profit.
Because of this, it can't be forced out of business the way closed source systems can, and it can effectively provide competition even when other companies can't.
I don't think that businesses are going to voluntarily open their standards. If we want open standards, we're going to hav
Also of interest (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Also of interest (Score:3, Informative)
the documentation is useless for that purpose (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Also of interest (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, by the way... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kind of a stretch... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
It certainly bans mine ...
" web pads, tablets, game consoles,"
I just bought a Toshiba Tecra M4 Tablet PC, and according to this, I can't use it. The wording is quite clear.
Re:Kind of a stretch... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:3, Funny)
Stupid names, really.
New Revenue Streams, So To Speak... (Score:3, Funny)
Hello! New business model!
"Hello, Dewey, Cheatem & Howe Attorneys at Law"
Where are laptops mentioned? (Score:4, Insightful)
Laptops are not "non-PC" nor are they embedded or device versions of yada yada yada.
Re:Where are laptops mentioned? (Score:3, Interesting)
personal computer
n. (Abbr. PC)
A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in an office or at home or school.
A laptop sure as hell fits that definition. I don't see this being a problem in a court of law.
Re:Where are laptops mentioned? (Score:2, Insightful)
Then again, I tend to prefer the good-ol' GPL for software.
Re:Where are laptops mentioned? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is a PC? The computer I'm typing this at, which is sitting in my bedroom, is my Personal Computer. However, it is a Macintosh. If I told some people this was "a PC," they'd probably say "no it isn't! That's a Mac!" So we have one definition, probably different than the one they mean.
Someone being particularly pedantic about the definition might think to themselves
Hopefully they resolved this point earlier in the contract (in the aptly named 'Definitions' section) by defining what "PC" means within the EULA. However if they didn't, then they're terribly stupid, because as often as it gets used, the term PC has multiple meanings depending on usage and context which can be very different in fact.
Re:Where are laptops mentioned? (Score:2)
Re:Where are laptops mentioned? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where are laptops mentioned? (Score:3, Informative)
Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:2)
no really, tell me. i'm quite interested in how they still retain control of it when it's running on other people's computers.
why is it their business whether you run it on your wrist watch or your toaster? what are they losing?
what are you losing.
show me the logic.
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:2)
just make sure commercial ventures (businesses) pay money for it and let the end users do with it what they like. that way, they can be greedy while the little people have a tiny bit more freedom.
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:3, Informative)
Otherwise you'd need to figure out a way to make the Shockwave binary run on the foreign hardware/OS. This is what they are trying to prevent. They don't want you to decompile the system. They want to license the source code to embedded systems integrators who will perform the porting for Original Equipment Ma
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:2)
Personally, even if they didn't care about laptops, that's so close to prohibiting/actually prohibits laptops, that I really wouldn't want to argue it in court... especially if I agree to pay THEIR legal fees.
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Where they will draw the line (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft quite clearly makes operating systems targetted at very specific niches. Their mainline Windows OS is targetted at desktop PC users (including laptops). Their server line of Windows OS is targetted at servers, and from the Macromedia EULA, it seems that these should not support Flash. They have their two embedded lines with WinCE and WinNTe which are also not supported under this EULA. From the main branch of the Windows OS
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:3, Insightful)
A Slashdot admin-on-high is responding to a direct concern from a mere peon! This almost never happens.
Thank you ScuttleMonkey, and may all slashdot admins be like this from now until eternity.
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:4, Insightful)
The most deceiving thing right now on slashdot is that most of the stories are worded in a way that just discredits it as a whole. How many times have I clicked the "Read More" button thinking "Is that true?", only to find out it wasn't by reading the two modded up posts on top. Slashdot discussions are not about the story anymore, they are much too often about correcting it. And the fact that people don't RTFA is... a fact. This is how people behave, and you will not change it. So just having a heavily distorted story helps only to get stupid flame wars about nonexistent issues.
You shall serve news instead of people's opinions, at least that's what the "News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters" is leading to. And to serve news, as the parent says, you have to do some editing/checking.
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:4, Insightful)
Regards,
Steve
Re:Who is scuttlemonkey? (Score:2)
Flash sucks anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully Flash will eventually go the way of the tag.
Re:Flash sucks anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flash sucks anyway (Score:2)
Re:Flash sucks anyway (Score:2)
I don't know what versions of the above editors you have installed, but I can quite easily read all of those text files with any of the above editors (with the possible exception of Notepad, haven't tried with Wine just yet)
Re:Flash sucks anyway (Score:2, Informative)
I still had to agree to the license agreement, but wtf. I don't have a laptop anymore, so I think I'm safe
Flash doesn't suck (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Big fucking deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:2)
Re:Big fucking deal (Score:2)
I suppose this is in response to something? (Score:2, Interesting)
My personal guess is that this is aimed at getting some money out of the whole "next generation cellphone multimedia content" thing.
They most likely just want to make sure they can charge the mobile providers if (when) they start rolling that kind of thing out.
Interesting. (Score:2)
The thing about banning laptops is just silly and not at all the intention of the agreement, as anyone can see from reading the text. Nor would any reasonable individual interpret it as such, but I am rather surprised by the ban on mobile devices/game machines/PDA's/Can Openers, and etcetera anyway
It would seem that they would want to get their player on as many platforms as they possibly could. I guess possibly they want to limit the range of devices to those which they have explicitly designed and tes
non pc ? (Score:2, Funny)
But the BIG QUESTION is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe somebody is hoping [slashdot.org]?
You can install on laptops (Score:5, Funny)
mike chambers
mesh@macromedia.com
Re:You can install on laptops (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You can install on laptops (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Fine, but what about the BSDs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can install on laptops (Score:2, Interesting)
Excuse me, idiots... (Score:2)
FUD in the first degree (Score:2)
Re:FUD in the first degree (Score:2)
No gaming machines? (Score:2)
Not that I actually care, since I hate flash anyways.
So, what's reasonable? Zero? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So, what's reasonable? Zero? (Score:3, Informative)
Finally a EULA compatible with MY needs (Score:5, Funny)
Audit (Score:2, Insightful)
Flash sucks. (Score:2, Troll)
Doesn't help that flash runs like shit
Just don't use Flash it is unless really needed! (Score:2)
Adobe will redo it anyway. (Score:2)
I'm ok with this (Score:2)
Re:I'm ok with this (Score:2)
There's a very simple answer.... (Score:2)
Visitors go away, counts go down, and those with Flash-based sites decide Flash-based restrictions suck and kick them to the curb.
People seem to think bringing landsharks into problems are the way to solve them. Something most weenies seem to forget or haven't learned is: the best way to beat the system is to play by the system. trans
DVDs ? (Score:2)
Boy, this gets my goat.
I'm sure they mean to say DVD players, however they screwed it up and said DVDs, which clearly refers to the medium, not the player.
Why does this happen so much with DVD players? You don't hear people refer to a CD player as a CD, do you?
You hear this enough in advertising, but you'd think Macromedia would know better.
The question I have (Score:3, Interesting)
Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand I would quite happily have a EULA on my computer targeted towards web developers: You may not run your CPU intensive, non-standard flash in my browser - if you can't do your site in HTML, I will quite happily avoid it.
Flash works (Score:3, Insightful)
Want to tell the client that their site will look the same across browsers without 2k of javascript and lingering uncertainty? Code for Flash 5, embed the fonts and cash the check.
Need some quick dancing spaghetti at the top of the page? No problem and small too.
Want to make a really annoying intro without a skip button? You have the power.
All in all, a worthwhile tool.
Proprietary Formats (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're right! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:pre-installed (Score:2)
It also makes me wonder at what point the courts will decide that an EULA isn't legally enforcable.
Re:Mac/PC? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:i'm one of the first.... (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, the article is, in typical slashdot manner, not just misleading, but plain wrong. Laptops are PCs, not embedded devices, so you're not prohibited in using Flash on them. You may dislike MM, but they are not stupid (unlike a part of the crowd)
Second, Flash does not suck resources unless there's heavy animation involved. It certainly doesn't use huge amounts of RAM.
Third, the parent poster uses the lowest form of FUD: he's lying. By default, a flash m
Re:i'm one of the first.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.... (Score:3)
Re:i'm one of the first.... (Score:3, Interesting)
So GPL'ed code isn't open?
Unfortunately, just like the SMB "standard," the Flash(tm) specification cannot be used to implement an open viewer.
That's true, it is a licensing restriction of that documentation, but there is a GPL Flash Player [sourceforge.net].
To me, the question comes down to: what's really important? Open specifications have been used and abused by Microsoft to bash competitors for time immemorial. (Microsoft sez: "We follow the open specification, but we've improved
Re:i'm one of the first.... (Score:5, Informative)
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. [macromedia.com]
Re:i'm one of the first.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Point by point, most is wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
If the computer is not intended for websurfing, by all means, don't! But it's rather essential in opposite case...
flash is a horrible horrible proprietary piece of junk.
Actually, the specs are open, it's just that all free flashes suck even worse.
it's main uses are to bypass the adblocking and cookie-deleting people.
It can be adblocked [mozdev.org] just the same. The flash cookies counterpart can be deleted all the same.
Design a better mousetrap and the Nature will design a better mouse [mozdev.org].
it by default sets up your microphone and webcam to spy on you.
Plain wrong.
it sucks resources like there's no tomorrow
Less than Java applets. Animation in Flash is less of CPU hog than same thing in Javascript. It offers better compression than GIF anim (though there's the constant player overhead, so use only in case of big animations).
and without a 3rd party plugin, you cannot refuse to allow certain instances to run.
You can't allow ANY instance to run without a 3rd party plugin (THE flash player). If you install one extension or two, what's the difference?
believe me, there's virtually no reason for an end user to install it.
I won't. There are sites where ALL the navigation is done in Flash. Sure, they suck, but they often contain essential info you need, so you're forced to use Flash against your will. I've seen sites where the "enter" button is made in Flash. Sites with non-skippable flash intro. Sure, they suck. But you can't just shun all the info they contain because of method of presentation. You DO need flash. Off by default.
if you want to view animations, just download them and view with an external standalone player (search for one).
Except the ones that require to be run from a webpage because they are too big and load in parts, except the ones protected against copying, except the ones that provide website navigation, except the ones that just break in standalone player etc, etc. And the standalone player comes bundled with web plugin.
and websites that require flash, i never visit. no matter how urgently i need to view something, i go without.
So, you got that new laptop, and you need the video adapter drivers. So you will remain in 640x480x8bpp@60Hz, because the drivers are accessible only through a flash page? uh... That's rather fanatical.
i would like the svg standard to replace flash sometime soon... what's the current progress, anyone know?
As for scriptable SVG, no development kit like one for Flash on the horizon. And Inkscape is far from really usable yet.
Re:Network licenses allow tablet pc's (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Network licenses allow tablet pc's (Score:3, Funny)
What not being stupid requires (Score:4, Insightful)
That goes double when the other party is a corporation, because there is no guarantee of continuity in management personnel, much less their intent.
And that certainly goes triple when the other party is a company that is currently being acquired by a different one, and thus absolutely certain the people in charge even in the short term future won't be the same ones as there are when the agreement was entered into.
To give you an analogy -- Caldera, in 1999, was a perfectly nice Linux company. Imagine the kind of case one could face from its current incarnation, the SCO Group, if you'd licensed something from Caldera with the belief that the intent behind the license wasn't exactly what the wording said, and used it based on your belief of the intent instead of in compliance with the wording.
So, looking at this EULA, I see it clearly and specifically authorizes use only on a "desktop computer". A laptop is not a desktop computer; thus, the EULA does not appear to allow me to put it on a laptop. It goes on to ban a number of specific devices, but with the phrasing "including, but not limited to", so the absence of the word "laptops" from the list does not serve to mean they are permitted.
Now, I am perfectly certain today's Macromedia management is not going to come after me for installing on a laptop. But I cannot be certain, and no one can guarantee me, that the future managers of Adobe won't be Darl McBride-alikes. That being the case, the potential liability more than swamps the incremental benefit of using the latest version of the Flash player.