Comments on: Adobe Legal… please think twice

By: John Dowdell

John Dowdell — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:08:15 +0000

I pulled together a little more context… still not definitive, but I hope it helps:
http://osflash.org/pipermail/osflash_osflash.org/2006-April/008509.html

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:13:24 +0000

Thanks John, appreciate the feedback!

By: John Dowdell

John Dowdell — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:07:17 +0000

For what it’s worth, I know that there are internal conversations on this today, but because there are multiple groups involved it may take a little while to get better word out.

(I personally like your line “we need better info”… that was my own take too.)

Summary: In process… I anticipate better info soon. Good?

By: andrewlucking.com » hey adobe, your skylarov is showing

andrewlucking.com » hey adobe, your skylarov is showing — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:30:36 +0000

[...] The OSFlash mailing list currently has some discussion on the matter in this thread. And Peter Elst has posted a good level headed appeal to Adobe regarding this manner. [...]

By: g.wygonik

g.wygonik — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:10:16 +0000

I’m not suprised they are starting to crack down on this really… There’s probably some statement somewhere in some EULA or website legalese that states this point.

I mean, at least when it comes to creating Flash components, if you read the EULA you’ll see that it clearly states you cannot use the word “Flash” in your website name or your product name.

That’s why I changed my Flash2PDF project to blazePDF when I started selling it (including domain names); I wanted to be sure I was “legal” on that end. (Luckily, with the plethora of products with “PDF” in the title, I’m hoping I won’t have to change that now that Adobe is in control ;-) )

By: john

john — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:10:18 +0000

thats crazy…what about Flash Memory, Flash Cards, Flash Gordon :)

By: Stefan Rchter

Stefan Rchter — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:09:08 +0000

I totally agree Peter. Clarity is needed.
I remember a few years ago we were trading as ‘Flashcomstudio’ and Macromedia would not include us in the ‘resources of interest’ section of their site because of ‘Flash’ in our name…
I’ve now managed to get Flashcomguru on the list – and there are others with Flash in their name; I’m unsure how or where the invisible line of acceptance lies.