On 4/27/12 5:40 AM, "David Coleman" <david_coleman_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I read it correctly, this license provides the right to re-distribute these
> binaries. And it also grants the right in (c) to *reproduce* them! Seems to
> cover the scope of actions which this group wishes to take to me.
>
> See excerpt below:
>
> Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Adobe grants You a
> non-exclusive, nontransferable license to: (a) modify those Flex Framework
> Binaries that have not been digitally signed (signed binaries are denoted by
> an ³.SWZ² extension); (b) internally use and reproduce the Flex Framework
> Binaries (in modified or unmodified form) for the purpose of developing
> Developer Programs,
>
> (c) internally use and reproduce the Flex Framework Binaries (in modified or
> unmodified form) as part of Your internal website for the purpose of compiling
> the Developer Programs,
>
> (d) copy and distribute the Flex Framework Binaries (in modified or unmodified
> form) as compiled into Developer Programs;
>
> (e) copy and distribute, through multiple tiers of distribution, the Flex
> Framework Binaries (in modified or unmodified form) with a Developer Program
> for use at runtime of such Developer Program, and
>
> (f) copy and include the Flex Framework Binaries (in modified or unmodified
> form) as part of Your public website for use at runtime by the Developer
> Programs that are distributed from Your website(s). You may in no instance
> modify Flex Framework Binaries that have been digitally signed.
>
This is correct, and was what we were assuming until recently, when I
discovered in the readme that we can't really consider playerglobal to be a
FLEX framework binary.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
