Hey, Hank, I salute you.. !!! I have been saying this to whoever started few weeks ago. But somehow someone on the edge is trying to fuel the fire. MC . On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 06:13 -0400, hank williams wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ Red5 mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
