On 10/26/05, Thomas Wester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the heads up Aral. > > However I fail to see a clear connection with the MTASC future > discussion. The Red5 or amfphp projects have no issues with > deconstruction the AMF protocol I can't see how deconstructing a f8.5 > .swf is any different.
That's what it figured, too. However, before we invest time into reverse engineering the bytecode we should find out for certain if the specs could even be used for an open source compiler. I just read up on the subject and it's not that simple. Reverse-engineering a protocol seems to generally be OK (I am not a lawyer, bla bla), since the software itself is not affected. How that translates to SWFs I don't know. The article also warned about EULAs, but also said that not all terms are necessarily valid. Then, there seems to be a difference between reverse-engineering and building a product out of it -- and I don't even know if an open-source compiler would be considered a product. Imagine we would write one and then found out we couldn't use it. In short, it seems like reverse-engineering isn't generally legal or illegal, but it very much depends on what and of course where. mark -- http://snafoo.org/ jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
