incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [MENTORS] Handling Adobe Binaries
Date Tue, 01 May 2012 22:55:05 GMT



On 5/1/12 3:40 PM, "olegsivokon@gmail.com" <olegsivokon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alex, why are you sure it violates anything?
I'm not sure.  

> 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?
Tools have the option to get a re-distribution agreement from Adobe to
bundle Player or AIR SDKs.  But my understanding of Apache's rules are that
we can't have that kind of relationship because the license is too
restrictive.
> 

> 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?
Mozilla allows re-distribution, if I understand correctly.

> (Again, I'm blur on why is that
> library under any Adobe's license since the code it contains isn't).
Not sure, but the flash.*.* stuff is probably not Tamarin
> 
> Best.
> 
> Oleg

-- 
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui


Mime
View raw message