Hi guys, back from holidays ;) I agree with John on this one, we just must wait and see which is Adobe's move. I wonder what will they do to forbid third party servers to inject h264 content into flash player...my bid is that they'll add a new handshake or whatever, it won't be a matter of legal issues. But anyway a post in a blog shouldn't cause panic.
Cheers Carlos On 8/22/07, Zárate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If a man speaks in a forest and his wife is not there, is he still wrong?
_______________________________________________ Red5 mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
