Here is a more up to date discussion on the issue: http://lwn.net/Articles/134642/
which shows it is not as clear cut of an issue. mike chambers hank williams wrote: > I am not familar enough with these projects to know what their issues > might or might not be. But just to be clear, I believe the issue of > whether or not protocols can be reverse engineered is settled law. > > http://news.com.com/Judges+OK+garage+door+openers+in+copyright+case/2100-1028_3-5341625.html > > Of course, people can sue over anything, and that is a risk. People > sue over things about which there is no merit, and that could easily > include adobe. They have done so in the past. > > In the case linked to above the court of appeals clarifies what should > be obvious. Copyright law cannot be used to prevent people from > reverse engineering communication protocols for interoperability. Now > Adobe could potentially claim that under the EULA, that they restrict > such reverse engineering. Now I think it is unlikely that the courts > will support that position since there are no known cases that support > that in the context of communications software. Moreover, it is > entirely possible to reverse engineer a protocol for these products > without agreeing to a eula. Flash is accessible without even click > signing a eula because it comes embedded in browsers and computers. > > The bottom line is that the court stands firmly on the side of > companies who wish to create interoperable products. But, it is always > possible that Adobe could use the threat of lawsuit, regardless of how > baseless, to throw cold water on movements that dont have the funding > to fight. > > Hank > > On 10/25/05, Mike Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Why do you assume they have no issues? >> >>mike chambers >> >> >>Thomas Wester wrote: >> >>>Thanks for the heads up Aral. >>> >>>However I fail to see a clear connection with the MTASC future >>>discussion. The Red5 or amfphp projects have no issues with >>>deconstruction the AMF protocol I can't see how deconstructing a f8.5 >>>.swf is any different. >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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
