Nick, I don't understand why is it illegal to write an alternative playerglobal.swc. This does not reproduce what Adobe has done, this is just a program that serves the same purpose, which, as a consequence, exhibits similar behavior. It is easy to show that you don't need to reverse anything in order to write such a program - because the documentation is published and available to everyone.
On the other hand, it's probably me wishing that there be least possible connections to Adobe and any other outside dependencies, too. I also mentioned that this library is not a product distributed by Adobe before in a less formal sense. I.e. there is no way to tell if the computer that is going to have SDK installed might already have this library - same thing as with flash player, for example. This is kind of a sloppy tradition of proprietary soft to put their programs in random locations never advertising the location, so I'd rather rely on something distributed in a normal way, then hope that Adobe will ever comprehend the importance of transparency of their installations. I mean, Flash player is one of the most widely distributed programs for PCs, and there is no certain way to tell if it is installed on a PC - I wouldn't want this kind of policy to plunder SDK installations too. Best. Oleg
