Macromedia SDK License: You Must Debug

Daniel Grund writes: "I noticed Macromedia has an SDK to help programmers write software that can generate SWF files. So, being curious, I skimmed their licensing agreement to see what I could see. Amusingly enough, sections 3f and 3g actually give the SDK user the legal obligation to debug their code! Of course, only bugs that cause the SWF files to be erroneous are required to be fixed. However, in theory, if you wrote a program that makes buggy SWF files, you could be sued by Macromedia (but only if you do it using the SDK I guess.) How's that for pressure on the Quality Assurance people; you not only annoy the customers if you fail, you also get the company sued."

Fed up.

[Triskaidekaphobia]

They're probably fed up of irate users phoning them up when the flash plugin crashes playing a bad file.

Remember windows says says

"IExplore.exe had an exception in flash.DLL"

and not

"Britney.swf crashed the flash plugin DLL"

It would be better if the plugin handled corrupt files more gracefully, but reminding flash developers of their responsibilities is a reasonable addition IMO.

Re:Fed up.

[malakai]

Oh come on. Sandbox software like Flash should never have an unhandled exception. It's Macromedia's fault that IE had to catch the exception, not vice versa.

What's wrong with QA'ing your own product?

[ObviousGuy]

1. Macromedia has a reputation to uphold, which can be ruined by a malicious programmer using the SDK to create trojan horses.

2. Debugging your product is a natural phase of development. Maybe not in the OSS world, but certainly in business.

In short, this is nothing special. If you find a bug in their code, you get to report it, and if you have a seriously screwed up swf writer, they will bring it to your attention.

They didn't say you'd be sued.

It's about time.

[Dr. Bent]

The more debugging that goes on, the better. Most code today is written by underqualified, overworked programmers who get yelled at when they try to do a good job by spending any decent about of time testing their code.

If the McMBA's in management actually had to worry about making sure the code was solid before they released it, then:

a) they would stop hiring grade C programmers and expecting them to do grade A work.

b) they would give those grade A progammers the time necessary to do the job correctly becuase it would be cost effective to do so.

Clarification:

[tunah]

Amusingly enough, sections 3f and 3g actually give the SDK user the legal obligation to debug their code!

Where their code is the user's code, not macromedia's (had me worried for a minute).

This is not unreasonable (unlike certain other EULAs I could mention). This is a case where if you don't like the EULA, don't use the SDK. This is macromedia trying to help people without destroying their image. (Think of what microsoft's broken java did to people's perception of formerly 'universal' java applets/applications)

[OT] Re:Clarification:

[tunah]

That's gotta be the most ominous email I ever recieved. It begins:

grammar nazi has posted a comment in reply to your comment. Re:Clarification:

If M$ did this...

[Fnagaton]

If M$ did this with their compilers, would they sue themselves for writing buggy software? ;)

No embrace and extend

[jas79]

It isn't saying that they will sue you for making errors. it is saying that that the software must export valid swf files.

So, you cannot make a swf file which will only work in your own flash tool or flash player. or make a version of swf which only works on a certain operating system.

Forced maintenance and bad specification?

[Satan's Librarian]

(f) You agree that your Product must output SWF files that can playback without Errors in the latest versions of the Microsoft Windows, Apple Macintosh, and Linux Macromedia Flash Players as listed at

http://www.macromedia.com/go/flashsource_platforms [macromedia.com] ("Macromedia Supported Platforms") as may be amended from time to time at Macromedia's sole discretion.

So... they can change their software at any point, any way they want, and you are in violation of their license agreement if your product doesn't overcome the backwards incompatibilities and bugs that they release? Sounds like it's putting the responsibility of creating a stable format and environment on the wrong side.

I'm all for developers actually debugging and testing their code - everyone knows that needs to happen quite a bit more often in our industry - but this license sounds like an attempt to shift blame away from the deserving target more than anything else.

If you write a plugin for a browser, you are operating in an environment that should be *secure*. Any third-party software should be forced into compliance or not executed. If a flash site can crash their plugin, a better crafted one could root the system. On a similar note, if content runs on Windows and not on Mac, then their plugin environment isn't suitably abstracted.

Re:Forced maintenance and bad specification?

[Komodo]

Hey, look at it this way: they're requiring it for MS, Mac, AND Linux. They aren't requiring it for QNX or Irix or whatever. They could easily exclude Linux from the bunch, and they aren't.