On Friday 15 July 2005 23:04, John Dowdell wrote: > emilianoz wrote: > > What do you think? I am really bothered and disappointed with such > > behavior and I wonder how comes that flash player packages are actually > > available for the so-called "un-supported Operating Systems". > > hear from you; I' m speechless seeing such statement > > Are you saying that you'd like to distribute Macromedia's software, but > don't like the operating systems which are tested as supporting that > software? or is the key point here something else...? > > (The GNU license can often be problematic, but I'm not sure whether that > was a necessary item in the description, or just an incidental > mention... not sure of the question yet, sorry.) > > Hmm, if I were to use my mystic ESP powers, I might guess that you're > trying to create some product for GNU/Linux, but because Macromedia > staff didn't find that this configuration didn't have problems, such > distributions are one thing the company doesn't freely offer others. > That's just me trying to read between the lines, and I'm probably wrong > in my best guesses, however. > > jd
Hello, JD. Since you are apparently employed by Macromedia, can you please explain how comes that Macromedia allows the existence of binary packages for Macromedia Flash Player ( such as at http://macromedia.mplug.org/ ), that are publicly known to be suitable for use on "un-supported Operating System", but the MM Customer Service states "we do not license users to install the player on an un-supported Operating System (for example Fedora or other Linux kernels)." ? Are you (MM) kidding or what? How can the MM Customer Service break the terms of the EULA provided at http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/, when there is a part saying explictly: "No Macromedia dealer, agent or employee is authorized to make any amendment to this EULA."? Furthermore, can you explain how comes that the MM Customer Service states that "GNU/Linux is considered as an embedded version of Linux", whilst the expression "GNU/Linux" is still commonly used on the Internet to mean the basis for a whole range of Linux-based distributions, and many of them are not "embedded" in any way? I'm looking forward for a clear and clever answer. Please notice that there is nothing personal with you, but I've very serious losses because of the behaviour of MM and I can't definitely rely on "business companions" behaving in this way: my job is to work with computers, not to run after Customer Services playing dumb and deaf, ambiguous statements and statements that can go against each other, and in any case against me. I think that the behaviour of the MM Customer Service concerning my case has been shamous, and that there is a very serious problem with MM, if I am NOT LICENSED (well, NO LONGER licensed, because of the legal imagination of the Customer Service) to install the standard player for .swf files on a Fedora distribution. Other companies, more clever indeed, would rather say: use this at your own risk. Why not MM? So far, what I've understood is that MM is unreliable. Aiming at distributing .swf files on a fixed medium (a HD) with a desktop Linux, I expected to be given licensing advice, information and eventually licensing prices. What happened? I was given mess, confusion and forbiddance. How can I work like this? Hear from you emi _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
