I don't know why we ended up discussing about Red5 name, but anyway.

What i hate the most of this story is Adobe not being crystal clear.
It's just a paragraph at the end of a huge post. I'd love an official
post saying:

"To Red5, Wowza, haXe video and the likes: look guys, you were doing
great, but c'mon, this is business and we have to protect ourselves.
You will be not allowed to stream MPG4 to the Flash Player. Here's a
link to the legal paper. Thanks for your work spreading the Flash
platform, you did a great job."

They even read this list and they haven't said anything, or at least
anything in public. Am I asking for too much? Is it too naive
expecting such a big company like Adobe to do something like this?

I can hear a bunch of slashdotters laughing out loud: "We told you!
Never embrace closed technologies!". However, Adobe plays really well
just in the edge between the evil and the "friendly" company. From
time to time they give us a sugar (Tamarin, Open Source Flex 2 SDK)
and from time to time they do something like this.

DISCLAIMER: I'm NOT blaming them for preventing 3rd party servers
stream MPG4. Adobe IS a company, they developed the technolgy and they
have the right to do whatever they want with it. If it's anybody's
fault, it would be ours for embracing a closed technology such as
Flash.

Cheers,

Juan

On 8/22/07, Michael Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To all RED5 users and Dev.
> No need to change name, there are no laws in control one's name for
> business unless it showed damages to the plaintiff, if a law suit
> proceed, it is the plaintiffs must prove to court damage has been done
> by defendants, in this case, by who?? OpenSource users ?
> Not a smart lawyer case...
> MC
>
> D. Dante Lorenso wrote:
> > Rodrigo Ordonez Licona wrote:
> >
> >> Momentum is strong enough that we would follow developers to a red6 or
> >> red7 (or whatever new name it needs) project in no time.
> >>
> >
> > RED6!?  Wow, is that an upgrade!  I want!
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > -- Dante
> >
> >
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
> >> Behalf Of *Dominick Accattato
> >> *Sent:* Martes, 21 de Agosto de 2007 04:35 p.m.
> >> *To:* [email protected]
> >> *Subject:* Re: [Red5] H.264 codec on Flash player... but not for Red5?
> >>
> >> Hank, as always I appreciate your comments on these matters.
> >>
> >> Additionally, I just checked an existing site I created and Sorenson is
> >> still streaming fine, and I'd imagine that On2 will as well.  I had no
> >> doubts that they would as Adobe strives for backward compatibility even
> >> though they have made security enhancements that broke existing content
> >> in the past.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure why he wrote that it doesn't support sorenson
> >>
> >> On 8/21/07, *hank williams* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     1. I am not clear what name you are saying red5 comes close to
> >>     infringing.
> >>
> >>     2. If it does, there are no damages without notice. You cannot sue
> >>     if you ask someone to change the name and they do. Its not like
> >>     copyright infringement where any infringement creates a statutory
> >>     liability. Therefore any intelligent open source project would just
> >>     change its name. This would not be a smart strategy for eliminating
> >>     open source and I *strongly* doubt red5 is at any risk from this
> >>     kind of a plan.
> >>
> >>     Regards,
> >>     Hank
> >>
> >>
> >>     On 8/21/07, *Donnacha* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >>
> >>         RE: Trademarks
> >>
> >>         To clarify what I meant, this issue has come up in discussion with
> >>         some very switched on people but not, I have to stress, anyone in
> >>         Adobe itself.  The context was people in fairly high positions,
> >>         discussing the tricky problem, faced by many proprietary software
> >>         makers, of how to counter OSS competition without provoking a
> >>         publicity backlash; Adobe/Red5 came up as a perfect case study.
> >>
> >>         There was total agreement that the Red5 developers have been
> >>         meticulous in ensuring that they didn't infringe Adobe's IP but the
> >>         name itself was identified as their Achilles heal, not necessarily
> >>         because it infringes a trademark or servicemark, although it
> >>         may, but
> >>         because it comes close enough to justify a court case.
> >>
> >>         The case of a claimant against Red5 would not be strong enough to
> >>         guarantee a win and, therefore, would not be worth taking UNLESS a
> >>         third party anonymously funded the legal costs as a distraction/FUD
> >>         tactic, just as Microsoft part-funded SCO's anti-Linux
> >>         actions.  This
> >>         form of anonymous funding is 100% legal and very common practice
> >>         among
> >>         American corporations.
> >>
> >>         In the case of targeting OSS projects, the presumption is that no
> >>         formal structure is in place to fund a defense and that the
> >>         costs will
> >>         be borne by the lead developers with no prospect, in this type of
> >>         action, of re-couping their costs even if they win - each side eats
> >>         their own costs.
> >>
> >>         This expensive process massively favors corporations and the vast
> >>         majority of these disputes never make it to court, never come to
> >>         public attention.
> >>
> >>         As any such action would be a once-off opportunity and would be 
> >> held
> >>         in reserve until it can be used to maximum effect, probably
> >>         after the
> >>         project goes 1.0 and a lot of momentum has built up behind the
> >>         disputed name - being forced to change it at that point would be a
> >>         serious set-back.
> >>
> >>         When the project was initially launched, I presumed that Red5 was
> >>         temporary title, a cute Star Wars reference that would soon be
> >>         replaced with a better name, one for which the .com was still
> >>         available.  I never expected it would last this long, I figured
> >>         that a
> >>
> >>         _______________________________________________
> >>         Red5 mailing list
> >>         [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >>         http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     _______________________________________________
> >>     Red5 mailing list
> >>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >>     http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dominick Accattato, CTO
> >> Infrared5 Inc.
> >> www.newviewnetworks.com <http://www.newviewnetworks.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Red5 mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Red5 mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Red5 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>


-- 
Juan Delgado - Zárate
http://zarate.tv
http://dandolachapa.com
http://loqueyosede.com

_______________________________________________
Red5 mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org

Reply via email to