Summary: Still not sure of the core question yet, sorry.
emilianoz wrote:
Since you are apparently employed by Macromedia....
Wait, let me go check whether my passcard still works at the door.... ;-)
, 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?
Weren't we talking about your desire to redistribute some versions of
the Macromedia Flash Player, rather than have them get it through the
Macromedia website in the usual way? That's what I thought I read in
your first message.
That's right... here's what I asked for in clarification, which you
fully quoted, but didn't seem to answer, unless maybe it's in one of the
bottom paragraphs
> 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...?
> 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'm still working on getting clear on the question, which is the first
step towards getting a clear answer, I'm still 'way behind you, sorry! :(
Here was my last attempt at turning the paragraphs of opinion into an
answerable question I could work on:
> 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.
I read through the subsequent long quotes, and my best guess is still
"Can I license a Player for redistribution for systems on which it is
not known to work?" to which I'd expect the answer to be "no" because of
the support and PR costs such a practice could impose on the company.
But I need to confirm my guess of your question before I could usefully
answer, sorry. :(
jd
--
John Dowdell . Macromedia Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA
Weblog: http://www.macromedia.com/go/blog_jd
Aggregator: http://www.macromedia.com/go/weblogs
Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/
Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks.
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
