Hey, Macromedia! What’s up with the Flash EULA?
Perhaps after the party celebrating the approval of the Adobe-Macromedia merger, some three-quarters smashed legal intern got their hands on the EULA draft and played around. On first glance it seems that:
- you can’t install the Flash Player software on a portable computer (s 2(a))
- you agree implicitly to allow Macromedia to audit your computer and slug you with a bill if they’re unhappy about the way you choose to use Flash Player (s 2(b))
These are probably liberal misinterpretations, but even so, they show that whoever was responsible for the EULA didn’t do their homework, and certainly didn’t pass the draft over enough sets of eyes before publication. Some of these statements are just dumb. Others, well… It would seem, reading the commentary at Slashdot (which at times is astoundingly unreliable, and at others, spot on), that at the very least, the EULA requires users to surrender rights which are not surrenderable under European/UK law. At best, Macromedia are guilty of inadequate research and incomplete due diligence. At worst, it appears that consumer– and user-base-friendly Macromedia is trying to become the new EULA playground bully.
Since when can’t I install Flash Player on my notebook PC (it is, and it’s staying there, and be buggered if Macromedia are going to audit anything!)?
Another case of a software company getting too big for its boots? I’ve met and talked with enough Macromedia staffers to know this isn’t their intent, but I’d be interested to hear from the proverbial horse’s mouth just what the story is.
Over to you, Macromedia…
For what it’s worth, I think you can install the Player on your machine, and I don’t think there’s any edge in conducting audits.
Such language is usually (from what I can tell) inserted into licensing agreements to guard against specific cases, such as multiple points of distribution for branded code (forking vulnerabilities) or invalidation of business licensing (handset manufacturers, eg). It’s pretty hard to go from that legal protection language back to meanings which invalidate realworld practice.
Something I’ve wanted to see for awhile has been a gloss, or interactivity, in such legal agreements. Lawyers can’t usually speak off-the-cuff like technicians can, but this Slashdot entry is just the most recent case where a group tries to read a legal document.
Maybe a way to handle it would be for us humans to bypass the legal phrasing, and instead say “Hey, can I install this?” and “Hey, will you audit me?” and such…?
Related stories
New theme
Trying out a new theme… Please be patient as the management seeks to prove his 733t h@x0r ski11z on PHP and makes his own mods to the theme. Better yet, take a squiz at Kiwi, which fascinates me, but I’m too scared to drop on the server live…
Updated ACME Guide
I’m working on an updated version of the ACME Guide, which should be available by the middle of next week. Earlier if I get enough time to work on it. The update will include: a much more comprehensive guide to the file structure for your development environment a more detailed look at the ColdFusion MX 7 Administrator settings needed to work in the environment we recommend a detailed look at the Eclipse plugins, in particular, getting QuantumDB to talk to your CFMX datasources In the meantime, you can get the ACME Guide here.
Your online voice
Industry colleague, Nick Hodge of Microsoft mentioned me a couple of times last week in a talk he gave to the NSW chapter of the Australian Institute of Management. He recommended me as a good source for information on Web 2.0 (particularly in business) in Australia. I was pretty chuffed about this, as I have a lot of respect for Nick. A follow-up post on Nick’s blog posed some questions arising from the talk, including this one from an audience member, Susan Dyster: You discussed the need for an authentic voice when engaging with others online as well as the fact that people are cautious about what they say to avoid getting sacked/becoming unemployable in their industry. This reminded me of something I heard about recruiters using candidate’s MySpace pages as part of the screening process — you have a boozy photo of yourself on MySpace and your application gets shredded. Where is …
Taking money from AGIMO doesn’t help
Andrea Di Maio of Gartner has written a pointed post with respect to the government taking $440M out of innovation funding to reduce our already tiny by global standards deficit. The AFR has identified this reallocation of dollars as a real risk to AGIMO, suggesting its future may be at risk. I certainly hope not, as in the last 18 months, AGIMO has proven itself a real leader in the innovation, open government and Government 2.0 stakes. Gutting AGIMO of money it could have accessed to advance the open government agenda strikes me as a major risk; one that could have serious flow-on impact. The people at AGIMO, at all levels, that I know work incredibly hard to champion ICT and open government working hand-in-hand must feel a little unsure of their future as the weekend arrives. We’re in an election, money is being sought everywhere. Butchering of innovative thinking and …