On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 11:45 -0500, Robinson Tryon wrote: > If the language about "creating similar software" has been removed > from the license, does that mean that there is less of a barrier for > people who have installed the Flash Player client to participate in > Gnash development?
Correct. FYI, this is what caused the language to change: http://www.openscreenproject.org/ > My understanding of laws concerning reverse engineering is limited. > Could hacking on the Gnash codebase be somehow construed as a > "derivative work" if you have the Flash Player installed? The phrase "derivative work" here applies to the Flash plugin itself, not to the SWF/FLV specs. So, no. > Could > actions such as documenting what output the Flash Player gives based > on certain inputs be judged to be (legally unprotected) reverse > engineering? Black-box reimplementation is not considered reverse engineering of the code, merely of the process, which is not covered by the EULA. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <[email protected]> PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
