incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Left Right <>
Subject Re: [MENTORS] Handling Adobe Binaries
Date Tue, 01 May 2012 22:40:34 GMT
As I looked inside the playerglobal.swc, it has actual AS3 code compiled
into it, not just dummy definitions :S
All classes listed here: are there (maybe
there are more of them, I didn't count).

Alex, why are you sure it violates anything? I believe there must be a
legal procedure to declare it a reverse engineering. I saw it done many
times before in a similar context, and beside Oracle trying to press
charges on Google for some superficial reason I don't know of any similar
case. (Beside, the case with Google is really different, Oracle claims
Google stole their implementation of their smelly J2EE, because they found
a handful of functions with same signatures).
Gnash exists for what would be like a decade, they implemented some of the
functions with same signatures as there are in Flash player - and I don't
remember / can't imagine anyone will try to sue them for that. ASDT first
and then FDT and FlashDevelop had mock-up classes / interfaces replicating
Flash player API for the purpose of parsing the code. Can you imagine a
code editor for AS other than that created by Adobe being even conceivable
if this was a real concern?

What we really have to know - it seems like a lot of things in that library
aren't really needed, or, if they are, then we are in a very sad situation,
because it contains the entire ES implementation, literary, not dummies. It
also contains loads of undocumented functions, not from ES variety - all
the "global" functions, like describeType() and even some arcane like
bugzilla(). If we actually need all that in order to produce SWFs, than it
meas that we are using Tamarin's code.
So, there are actually two options: if we actually only need the
"outlines", then the library would be 90% smaller then it is now, and it
would hardly have anything in common with what Adobe provides today. But if
for any reason we need that library, then the code it contains probably has
to go with Tamarin's license, whichever it is, because that is what it is.
But then there's yet another option - maybe it will be easier to "make
friends" with Tamarin and compile their code into that library? Is Mozilla
license any better for Apache then Adobe's? (Again, I'm blur on why is that
library under any Adobe's license since the code it contains isn't).



  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message