Re[2]: [Gnash] Gnash cannot legally play animations created with MM tools?

[Udo Giacomozzi]

Hello Rob,

please excuse that you got no life sign from me for quite a while now.
As said, I'm very busy at work (Nov/Dec is usually the worst time of
the year). But see below..

Thursday, November 9, 2006, 2:06:44 AM, you wrote:
>> Regardless of whether I might do the right thing in respect to the
>> EULA and/or local rights, I can't be involved in any lawsuit because I
>> simply have no 8 months of time left.

RS>   I don't think this would be your problem, it's mine. So I'd assume for
RS> now to just keep doing things the way you have been, and I'll try to
RS> work out the issue. It just might take a while...

I hope I don't start again a discussion that's already answered in
another post in the meantime. However, are you sure about this? At the
end, it's /me/ having "agreed" to the licence...


RS>   The plugin wouldn't work very well on an embedded device anyway. The
RS> big difference between many embedded devices and a browser plugin is
RS> that a company may ship millions of devices. MacroMedia preferred to get
RS> paid a licensing fee for every single copy. This is a traditional
RS> business model for embedded systems. Free software has upset this model,
RS> which is why many companies are switching to embedded Linux. So if you
RS> ship millions of devices, they wanted millions of dollars.

Yep, and if you ship less, it's not interesting for them... :-/


RS>   Adobe, however, has always supported people utilizing their documented
RS>  formats like PDF and Postscript, and doesn't even charge per device,
RS> like say a Laser printer. (at least I don't think they do, I've been out
RS> of the printer biz for 16 years) I believe they prefer to make their
RS> money on the content creation tools instead. Since Adobe never attacked
RS> Evince, Xpdf, Gpdf, Ghostscript, etc... I assume Gnash is fine too. I'd
RS> still like a legal opinion, or word from Adobe so I can relax.

Any news?

Udo