From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 12 16:09:00 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B0716A404 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:09:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nalists@scls.lib.wi.us) Received: from mail.scls.lib.wi.us (mail.scls.lib.wi.us [198.150.40.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5770B43D49 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:08:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nalists@scls.lib.wi.us) Received: from [172.26.2.238] ([172.26.2.238]) by mail.scls.lib.wi.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k3CG8w9C023239; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:08:58 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from nalists@scls.lib.wi.us) Message-ID: <443D261A.9060703@scls.lib.wi.us> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:08:58 -0500 From: Greg Barniskis User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Greenwood References: <443BB35B.6050801@computer.org> <20060411204721.S35382@tripel.monochrome.org> <443C59BF.60901@computer.org> <200604121137.32229.work@ashleymoran.me.uk> <443D170C.3080103@utdallas.edu> <3ee9ca710604120814u6ca61bf5pd459a1cdd5a3ec3f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3ee9ca710604120814u6ca61bf5pd459a1cdd5a3ec3f@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Paul Schmehl , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Wanted: Flash player for .... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:09:00 -0000 Andy Greenwood wrote: > On 4/12/06, Paul Schmehl wrote: >> Ashley Moran wrote: >> Petition? How about we sue them? How can a vendor dictate what >> platform they allow their software to run on? Just because they >> designed it for some other OS doesn't mean, if I can figure out a way to >> make it work, that they can tell me I can't run it on that platform. > > > With the Current EULA, that's exactly what they CAN do Indeed they can, and at least in the U.S., commerce law basically backs their rights to be total asses about it if they so choose. It's their intellectual property and you must toe their line on their terms, whatever the terms. Pulling it from ports was the only logical short-term response to this silly restrictive language. > I'm not a lawyer either, but frankly I think their EULA is unenforceable >> and their attitude ought to cost them customers. They don't really need to enforce it themselves. The Business Software Alliance will gladly descend on suspected violators of any commercial software EULA with a horde of lawyers and auditors and fines in the 5-6 figure range per violation. Would they, in the case of a lone user who's just trying to browse the Web? Probably not, but stranger things have happened (RIAA, Sony DRM, etc.). FWIW, I don't really care if this gets resolved. I'd estimate 95% of Flash content I'm exposed to is somewhat-to-totally undesirable (way too animated ads), and the remainder's value is mainly just entertainment-oriented and not so precious that I'd really fight for it. On the other hand, I'd applaud anyone who does fight it, on principle alone. It's a bad EULA, 'nuff said. Good luck! -- Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator South Central Library System (SCLS) Library Interchange Network (LINK) , (608) 266-6348