Andy Greenwood wrote:
On 4/12/06, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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)
<gregb at>, (608) 266-6348
_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to