Comments on: No, Adobe has not just killed SWX :) http://aralbalkan.com/1109 Aral on Flash, SWX, Flex, ActionScript, and life. Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:14:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: fikralar http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-167057 fikralar Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:52:42 +0000 http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-167057 oh aral you are super. l want to ask a question. your web page rank is best. how old are your web site oh aral you are super. l want to ask a question. your web page rank is best. how old are your web site

]]> By: Ruben Müller http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-93805 Ruben Müller Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:07:11 +0000 http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-93805 Oh boy .. Aral, you´re killing me. :D Time goes by so slow, if there´s that nasty thing called anticipation. :) Aside from that, I love SWX and Datum, it made my developer life a never ending piece of cake. ;) Oh boy .. Aral, you´re killing me. :D Time goes by so slow, if there´s that nasty thing called anticipation. :)
Aside from that, I love SWX and Datum, it made my developer life a never ending piece of cake. ;)

]]> By: Aral http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-93729 Aral Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:30:15 +0000 http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-93729 Hi David, Apologies if I wasn't clear on the legality issue, I was up at 3am by chance when I saw your comment and decided to reply :) To clarify: As Jens states in his comment, the SWF specification is semi-open. It is published but there are restrictions on its use. Previously these restrictions included not making a competing Flash Player and not making products that create a SWF on the server. The key point here is this though: Those restrictions only apply if you agree to Adobe's terms and read the spec. Your right to discover protocols by observation for the purpose of interoperability is legal and even protected by the DCMA in the USA. So, for the AVM1 version of SWX PHP, I wrote the SWX assembler that creates the data SWFs without ever agreeing to the terms of the Adobe license for the Flash 8 spec and without ever reading the spec. Instead, I used a trusty hex editor (0xED), Flasm, and TextMate to decipher the SWF bytecode. It took a while to do but it was fun and, most importantly, there is no legal grey zone. Starting with the spec for Flash 9, the restriction regarding server products is no longer in the license. This is why we are using the spec to create the AVM2/Flash 9 version of SWX PHP. Again, there is no legal issue here. Beyond this, I have personally spoken with a diverse range of people from within Adobe, ranging from top-level management to engineers on various teams (including the Flash Light and Flash Player teams) and they have all been very positive about SWX. Emmy even told me that the name SWX came up for consideration as a possible moniker for the the new cached components feature in Flex and that they made a conscious decision to not use it because it would clash with SWX (thanks Emmy!) :) So to reiterate one last time, there is no legal issue surrounding the use of SWX and no one at Adobe has ever given me any indication that they view it negatively. And there is no reason for them to either as it is a hugely useful addition to the Flash Platform. And, with the release of invoke.it in 2008, it's going to become even more useful. What's invoke.it? You'll see... :) (Yes, that makes a total of three secret new projects I have for 2008 and that means that my plate is officially full for the next year!) I can't wait! Hi David,

Apologies if I wasn’t clear on the legality issue, I was up at 3am by chance when I saw your comment and decided to reply :)

To clarify:

As Jens states in his comment, the SWF specification is semi-open. It is published but there are restrictions on its use. Previously these restrictions included not making a competing Flash Player and not making products that create a SWF on the server.

The key point here is this though: Those restrictions only apply if you agree to Adobe’s terms and read the spec.

Your right to discover protocols by observation for the purpose of interoperability is legal and even protected by the DCMA in the USA.

So, for the AVM1 version of SWX PHP, I wrote the SWX assembler that creates the data SWFs without ever agreeing to the terms of the Adobe license for the Flash 8 spec and without ever reading the spec. Instead, I used a trusty hex editor (0xED), Flasm, and TextMate to decipher the SWF bytecode. It took a while to do but it was fun and, most importantly, there is no legal grey zone.

Starting with the spec for Flash 9, the restriction regarding server products is no longer in the license. This is why we are using the spec to create the AVM2/Flash 9 version of SWX PHP. Again, there is no legal issue here.

Beyond this, I have personally spoken with a diverse range of people from within Adobe, ranging from top-level management to engineers on various teams (including the Flash Light and Flash Player teams) and they have all been very positive about SWX. Emmy even told me that the name SWX came up for consideration as a possible moniker for the the new cached components feature in Flex and that they made a conscious decision to not use it because it would clash with SWX (thanks Emmy!) :)

So to reiterate one last time, there is no legal issue surrounding the use of SWX and no one at Adobe has ever given me any indication that they view it negatively. And there is no reason for them to either as it is a hugely useful addition to the Flash Platform.

And, with the release of invoke.it in 2008, it’s going to become even more useful.

What’s invoke.it? You’ll see… :)

(Yes, that makes a total of three secret new projects I have for 2008 and that means that my plate is officially full for the next year!) I can’t wait!

]]> By: Jensa http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-93722 Jensa Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:04:37 +0000 http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-93722 Hi David, SWF really is not a "closed proprietary format". It's rather a "published proprietary format". It is open in the sense that anyone can create software that writes SWF files, but you are not allowed to make alternatives to the Flash Player. Some do exist, but these are what you refer to as "legal grey zone". Creating SWF files has really never been a problem: http://www.flashmagazine.com/660.htm This article is from 2004 but I seem to remember that Macromedia have published the SWF spec since Flash 4 (1999/2000)? Getting to the spec used to require a license, but anyone applying will get that. It's more a formality. J Hi David,
SWF really is not a “closed proprietary format”. It’s rather a “published proprietary format”. It is open in the sense that anyone can create software that writes SWF files, but you are not allowed to make alternatives to the Flash Player. Some do exist, but these are what you refer to as “legal grey zone”.

Creating SWF files has really never been a problem: http://www.flashmagazine.com/660.htm This article is from 2004 but I seem to remember that Macromedia have published the SWF spec since Flash 4 (1999/2000)? Getting to the spec used to require a license, but anyone applying will get that. It’s more a formality.

J

]]> By: David Arno http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-93705 David Arno Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:56:33 +0000 http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-93705 Superb response to my post Aral, Thanks. My only point of contention is with the legality of SWX, but this may be based on a misunderstanding on my part. As I understand it, the SWX server creates SWFs on the fly. As the SWF file format is a closed proprietary format owned by Adobe and they have never released tools to support the creation of SWFs on the fly, thus SWX must be based on reverse-engineering the SWF format. Assuming the above is correct, then SWX definitely sits in a legal grey-zone as the Adobe legal team are free at any stage to stamp down on the reverse engineering of the SWF format. If I'm wrong and the tools are supplied by Adobe, then that s great news though, for that does indeed remove the legal concerns. Superb response to my post Aral, Thanks.

My only point of contention is with the legality of SWX, but this may be based on a misunderstanding on my part. As I understand it, the SWX server creates SWFs on the fly. As the SWF file format is a closed proprietary format owned by Adobe and they have never released tools to support the creation of SWFs on the fly, thus SWX must be based on reverse-engineering the SWF format.

Assuming the above is correct, then SWX definitely sits in a legal grey-zone as the Adobe legal team are free at any stage to stamp down on the reverse engineering of the SWF format. If I’m wrong and the tools are supplied by Adobe, then that s great news though, for that does indeed remove the legal concerns.

]]> By: Peter http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-93692 Peter Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:42:36 +0000 http://aralbalkan.com/1109#comment-93692 lol, I almost forgot about that whole INFRNO thing ;) I can't see any connection between BlazeDS and SWX let alone one killing the other. There was a time when I thought AMF was dying and AMFPHP one of the few projects artificially keeping it alive. I'm glad to see Adobe is picking it up again and supporting community efforts using the format. More power to SWX, I see a bright future for your project and a great market when mobile development finally takes off. lol, I almost forgot about that whole INFRNO thing ;) I can’t see any connection between BlazeDS and SWX let alone one killing the other.

There was a time when I thought AMF was dying and AMFPHP one of the few projects artificially keeping it alive. I’m glad to see Adobe is picking it up again and supporting community efforts using the format.

More power to SWX, I see a bright future for your project and a great market when mobile development finally takes off.

]]>