He didn't get a reply. I am following up on it internally now.

mike chambers

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Scott Hyndman wrote:
> Did you get no reply from Macromedia, or were you rejected?
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Edwin van Rijkom
> Sent:   Wed 10/26/2005 12:37 PM
> To:     Open Source Flash Mailing List
> Cc:    
> Subject:        Re: [osflash] Screenweaver : WAS Legal Considerations 
> That Concern Us All
> Mike Chambers wrote:
> 
>  >First of all, if you need input from Macromedia on something, then
>  >posting to a blog is not necessarily the best way to get it. For
>  >example, I had never seen the post below.
>  > 
>  >
> I did not post on my blog to get a reaction from Macromedia. For that, I
> filled out the 'player licensing' form, twice, unfortunately to no
> avail. The blog is for personal opinion and keeping the community up to
> speed on what's keeping me busy.
> 
>  >Second, do Screenweaver projects actually embed the player? (sorry if
>  >that is a simple qustion, but I havent used Screenweaver).
>  > 
>  >
> It's an option. Users can choose to pack the ActiveX with their projects
> for easy deployment. All swf2exe's work that way nowadays.
> 
> Cheers,
> Edwin
> 
>  >mike chambers
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >Edwin van Rijkom wrote:
>  > 
>  >
>  >>Stefan Richter wrote:
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>   
>  >>
>  >>>It's up to Macromedia/Adobe to lay out the rules for the game. 
> Having the
>  >>>referee play on one of the teams doesn't make much of a great sport and
>  >>>leaves the other side wondering if it's worth playing at all.
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>     
>  >>>
>  >>Playing the game will be very worthwhile if it turns out that the
>  >>referee realizes that his target is to make the sport more populair, to
>  >>the benifit of all players and the audience.
>  >>
>  >>I wish he would erect the perimeter fence - I'm asking for that
>  >>explicitly (see:
>  >>http://www.vanrijkom.org/archives/2005/08/licensed_to_fla.html) but it
>  >>seems to be half-time.
>  >>
>  >>IMHO this could all be cleared up if someone for each 'disputable'
>  >>project would simply contact Macromedia formaly and ask if a license is
>  >>required. If so, why not simply ask Macromedia if such a license can be
>  >>granted?
>  >>
>  >>If the answer is 'no' than that would be very disapointing, but it is
>  >>better to know sooner than later. At least it would put an end to all
>  >>uncertainties.
>  >>
>  >>Cheers,
>  >>Edwin
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>_______________________________________________
>  >>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
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 
>  >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org

Reply via email to