Like some one (sorry to forget the name) said in this thread earlier, Adobe is in the campaign of open source. At least, with them, Flex is no longer high-priced during the Macromedia days and they even open sourced it. I don't know others, for me, I started thinking the possibility of creating flash-based application from the point when Flex was open sourced and an IDE Flex Builder is available. If it is not Adobe, I don't know when MM will do so. Someone says Adobe acquires MM to get Flash. It is true but Adobe's vision and financial strength has fostered a new community which many people couldn't think of.
I think the reason why many adobe employees on this list remains silence because it is rather a corporate's decision but not developer's. Let us wait for the formal documents and perhaps, take a look at Gnash in the mean time. Regards, Yang Ye On 8/22/2007 3:30 PM, Zárate 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 >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Red5 mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
