Guys, Relax!!!! It is unlikely that Tinic was referring to any legal means that they might employ to prevent others from streaming h.264. This was Tinic writing. He is not a lawyer or even a marketer. And his english is not always solid. I have been over the legal issues a million times so I won't go over them again other than to say the US courts have made clear that reverse engineering a communications protocol for interoperability is *legal*. This has been adjudicated in the garage door opener case in US Federal Court several years ago. I am too tired to cite links right now though I have done so several times before.
The only potential issue that could be legal is that there are patents on h.264 and AAC that require licensing. But servers do not build h.264 or AAC files, they just transmit them so just as gmail can transmit an h.264 file as an attachment, so too can any other server transmit one of these patented file types. Adobe is free to use secrecy to protect RTMP, as they do. And they are free to try to make it harder, as they may. But Adobe will not be suing anybody over successfully streaming to flash because there is no legal basis to do so. So again, everybody, please relax. Its gonna be ok. Hank 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 >
_______________________________________________ Red5 mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
