Comments on: Flash Component EULA Updated http://rewindlife.com/2004/03/11/flash-component-eula-updated/ Technical discussion of Flex, Flash, and RIA development Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:54:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: ActionScript Hero http://rewindlife.com/2004/03/11/flash-component-eula-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-528 ActionScript Hero Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:00:32 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=146#comment-528 <strong>New at Macromedia.com: Updates: EULA, Dreamweaver MX 2004, Studio MX 2004. Tutorial: Gradually Implementing CSS in Your Site</strong> Macromedia Developer Center. Sweet friday! Great news, updates and a nice CSS tutorial at Macromedia. This time I'm linking related posts in the flash community. Special thanks to Macromedia for the EULA update!... New at Macromedia.com: Updates: EULA, Dreamweaver MX 2004, Studio MX 2004. Tutorial: Gradually Implementing CSS in Your Site

Macromedia Developer Center. Sweet friday! Great news, updates and a nice CSS tutorial at Macromedia. This time I’m linking related posts in the flash community. Special thanks to Macromedia for the EULA update!…

]]> By: Chafic Kazoun http://rewindlife.com/2004/03/11/flash-component-eula-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-527 Chafic Kazoun Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:00:11 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=146#comment-527 Thanks for the comments Lucian. I know you guys have been trying hard and do appreciate all the effort you have given. It is a tough decision you guys have to make as a lot of the developers in the community are used to how the MX components/framework were licensed. It was open and free and everyone could do what they want. With that said, I don't recall there ever being issues with competing frameworks back then. Macromedia’s version was the one that was always used by components distributed (that used any framework). The point of having the ability to distribute patches to the framework is one that can be debated by many and no side will win. We at times want to make enhancements/fixes to the framework and would like to distribute them to others legally. Finally the EULA is pretty wordy/confusing. I had to read it several times to get it (I must be slow) and even then I wasn't sure about some issues. For example, am I allowed to distribute an Fla with components? How about pro components? The reason I ask this is we need to distribute some sample applications and they rely heavily on the DataGrid component. Since there is no material improvement to the DataGrid in those sample application, is this allowed? I'm sure this is something everyone needs to do (actually many of us already do it because we assume you guys don't *really* mind) All in all I’m really glad Macromedia has made this change and it's obvious that you guys have listened to most of our requests. This is definitely a step in the right direction. Thanks for the comments Lucian. I know you guys have been trying hard and do appreciate all the effort you have given. It is a tough decision you guys have to make as a lot of the developers in the community are used to how the MX components/framework were licensed. It was open and free and everyone could do what they want. With that said, I don’t recall there ever being issues with competing frameworks back then. Macromedia’s version was the one that was always used by components distributed (that used any framework). The point of having the ability to distribute patches to the framework is one that can be debated by many and no side will win. We at times want to make enhancements/fixes to the framework and would like to distribute them to others legally.

Finally the EULA is pretty wordy/confusing. I had to read it several times to get it (I must be slow) and even then I wasn’t sure about some issues. For example, am I allowed to distribute an Fla with components? How about pro components? The reason I ask this is we need to distribute some sample applications and they rely heavily on the DataGrid component. Since there is no material improvement to the DataGrid in those sample application, is this allowed? I’m sure this is something everyone needs to do (actually many of us already do it because we assume you guys don’t *really* mind)

All in all I’m really glad Macromedia has made this change and it’s obvious that you guys have listened to most of our requests. This is definitely a step in the right direction.

]]> By: Lucian Beebe http://rewindlife.com/2004/03/11/flash-component-eula-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-526 Lucian Beebe Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:54:55 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=146#comment-526 I'll reply to Grant's posting there, but want to reply here as well. We did a lot to open up the EULA for the 90% case that people needed. We feel pretty good about the changes and they will allow you to use our framework (modified all you want) to make your own components. You can do anything you want with the components you make: sell them, trade them, give them away. That was the goal for modifying the EULA. We didn't go so far as to open up the Framework to be modified and distributed. We worried a lot that doing this would create complete changes to people's systems and that could cause competing frameworks to create a lot of confusion and bugs. When people spend hours troubleshooting problems with incompatable frameworks, it won't be a good experience for anyone. We realize that by allowing people to distribute components based on modified framework code we are allowing this to happen a bit, but we thought we'd test the process a bit before opening it up all the way. So, I hope you feel we've taken a good and right step in the right direction. We'll keep an eye on it and continue to do the right thing in the future. Lucian Beebe Flash Product Manager I’ll reply to Grant’s posting there, but want to reply here as well. We did a lot to open up the EULA for the 90% case that people needed. We feel pretty good about the changes and they will allow you to use our framework (modified all you want) to make your own components. You can do anything you want with the components you make: sell them, trade them, give them away. That was the goal for modifying the EULA.

We didn’t go so far as to open up the Framework to be modified and distributed. We worried a lot that doing this would create complete changes to people’s systems and that could cause competing frameworks to create a lot of confusion and bugs. When people spend hours troubleshooting problems with incompatable frameworks, it won’t be a good experience for anyone. We realize that by allowing people to distribute components based on modified framework code we are allowing this to happen a bit, but we thought we’d test the process a bit before opening it up all the way.

So, I hope you feel we’ve taken a good and right step in the right direction. We’ll keep an eye on it and continue to do the right thing in the future.

Lucian Beebe
Flash Product Manager

]]> By: ericd http://rewindlife.com/2004/03/11/flash-component-eula-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-525 ericd Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:56:05 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=146#comment-525 i just read grant's take on it - and yes, it's opened up, but not all the way to make the way through comfortable. i just read grant’s take on it – and yes, it’s opened up, but not all the way to make the way through comfortable.

]]> By: Chafic Kazoun http://rewindlife.com/2004/03/11/flash-component-eula-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-524 Chafic Kazoun Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:21:35 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=146#comment-524 Yeah you can sell your own components. The main issue is the ability to modify the v2 framework. Depending on your reason you want to make modifications to that framework, you may find the EULA restricting. Yeah you can sell your own components. The main issue is the ability to modify the v2 framework. Depending on your reason you want to make modifications to that framework, you may find the EULA restricting.

]]> By: ericd http://rewindlife.com/2004/03/11/flash-component-eula-updated/comment-page-1/#comment-523 ericd Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:17:37 +0000 http://rewindlife.com/?p=146#comment-523 interesting... and welcome. i see no problem with the providing material value - makes sense to me. does this mean they can be sold? interesting… and welcome. i see no problem with the providing material value – makes sense to me. does this mean they can be sold?

]]>