Well as far as amfphp is concerned I believe from contacts with MM that they have given us implicit consent as they have mentionned that Remoting will not be made available for PHP by MM itself but they are aware that the need is there, so we're just filling a void.
Yes, AMF was reverse-engineered, but at this point I believe it's been in an acceptable grey area for long enough that we can say it's fine. Red5 is another story, and 8.5 bytecode reverse-engineering is another. In the end MM has the right to open up or not its proprietary specs, and it has the right to find acceptable or not reverse-engineering attempts. We still have 6 months until FP8.5 and the bytecode is not even stable yet so it's a stale discussion anyways, as an attempt at that would be pretty useless. I suggest the 'shut up and wait' approach. Personally I don't mind paying a grand for a compiler, but I do understand people (say Claus) have issues with it, especially if they are developing non-commercial products. But then again that's always been an issue before the arrival of MTASC on the scene. Patrick Mineault www.5etdemi.com/blog www.amfphp.org Mike Chambers wrote: >Why do you assume they have no issues? > >mike chambers > > >Thomas Wester 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. >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >osflash mailing list >[email protected] >http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
