cURL / Mailing Lists / curl-library / Single Mail

curl-library

Adobe Flash Player 9 for Unix violates curl licence

From: Albert Lee <trisk_at_acm.jhu.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:00:16 -0400

Hi,

Adobe's recently released Flash Player 9 beta for Linux (and presumed future
builds for other unix) statically link libcurl but don't reproduce the
required MIT-style copyright notice anywhere in software, nor accompanying
documentation or licence. There is only a reference to the URL for
Adobe's "Pre-Release Software" licence in the documentation.

The files in question are:
gflashplayer from flash-player-standalone-9.0.21.55
(distributed as FP9_standalone_beta_101806.tar.gz / md5sum:
f200d4d1a5c4591b3131130f6aa6dff5)
[trisk_at_kainga]% strings -a flash-player-standalone-9.0.21.55/gflashplayer |
grep daniel
curl_by_daniel_at_haxx.se

libflashplayer.so from flash-player-plugin-9.0.21.55
(distributed as FP9_plugin_beta_101806.tar.gz / md5sum:
0b234c5d0eaf254ef8af364fb9ed97f2)
[trisk_at_kainga]% strings -a flash-player-plugin-9.0.21.55/libflashplayer.so |
grep daniel
curl_by_daniel_at_haxx.se

They both are shipped with the same readme.txt which states:
"Your use of this player is governed by the Adobe Beta Program guidelines or
the End User License Agreement found at
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/eula/flashplayer.html"

Section 11 of the EULA:
"The Software may contain third party software which requires notices and/or
additional terms and conditions. Such required third party software notices
and/or additional terms and conditions are located at
www.macromedia.com/go/thirdparty and are made a part of and incorporated by
reference into this EULA. By accepting this EULA, you are also accepting the
additional terms and conditions, if any, set forth therein."

Following *that* link, and selecting "Flash Player 9 Third Party Software
Notices and/or Additional Terms and Conditions" brings you to
http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/flashplayer/ - where curl is
is not acknowledged in any way.

Even if the copyright notice were listed, it may be moot because the terms of
the licence say that the notice has to "appear in all copies" of the software
rather than "accompanying" or "supporting" documentation and materials. This
would also apply to MIT's own copyright mentioned on the third party terms
page, so it's obviously open to interpretation.

-Albert
Received on 2006-10-20