The Terms and Conditions

The phrase you quoted says it cannot be installed or used on a server so it can be used when a non server is connected to a server.

Probably, this is to allow for free use by the masses but they most likely will charge a license fee for a server. I don't know this for sure but much of the free software has such conditions on use.

Neil

I'm not getting it.

Again, the Terms say:

3.2 Server Use. This agreement does not permit you to install or use the software on a computer file server.

Neil, you seem to have altered what it says or left out some words when you said:

"The phrase you quoted says it cannot be installed or used on a server so it can be used when a non server is connected to a server."

No, it says it may not be installed on A COMPUTER FILE SERVER. A computer being a hardware device, there are also physical hardware servers, such as those used by website providers, so we are only trying to realize what a computer file server is.

I would say that a computer, by definition, IS a file server, in which case there would only be one way not to install or use Flash Player on a computer and that would be to NOT install it.

Further, the Firefox Browser incorporates a Flash Player Plugin which will play audio or video from any source, either on the computer or on the internet.

Software servers of various kinds exist, including Shoutcast and Icecast radio streaming servers, but they do not rely on having Flash involved, except that other computers can use Flash to access those streams over a LAN or WAN.

Youtube is a server which requires Flash and there are commercials.

I cannot imagine a single instance where the Flash Player can be used or not used based on the wording of the Term of Use.

Maybe that's the usual disclaimer, to be used if someone uses the software way out of context, but is rarely enforced? I could see Flash Player being used on a server easily, through a thin client or terminal that would connect to a server and load Flash's code. Probably Adobe doesn't care if it's around the house, but on a larger scale they'd want everyone to have their own individual copy, that's the way I read it.

I just re-installed my system and got new Firefox, and it doesn't use Adobe Flash player for Youtube any longer. I'd say good riddens, Adobe Flash player has caused grief many times through updates and by serving so many ads on sites. Last year I was writing a paper, an essay and pretty long, and got a total freeze. On restart, the first thing to pop up was a notice that my Adobe Flash had been updated. A fluke? Nope, it happened a number of times before.

I read on all of this, and sites are trying to get away from Flash and going towards "HTML 5 Video and audio". Apparently sites like Youtube pay lots of money for the use of Flash technology, where HTML 5 media is part of the new web standards and doesn't have those fees.

Still, Adobe is trying to get their grabbing hands on a slice of HTML 5 video standards, in my opinion, by making a DRM standard called "Adobe Primetime CDM" I read about it when I installed Firefox, and from my History: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm

From the neigh side at The Guardian:

"

Mozilla has released the first version of its Firefox browser to include support for Encrypted Media Extensions, a controversial World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) spec that brings digital rights management (DRM) to HTML5's video tag.

The nonprofit grudgingly agreed to add EME support to Firefox last year, despite the vocal objections of both Mozilla's then-CTO Brendan Eich and the Free Software Foundation.

"Nearly everyone who implements DRM says they are forced to do it" the FSF said at the time, "and this lack of accountability is how the practice sustains itself."

Nonetheless, Mozilla promoted Firefox 38 to the Release channel on Tuesday, complete with EME enabled – although it said it's still doing so reluctantly.

"We don't believe DRM is a desirable market solution, but it's currently the only way to watch a sought-after segment of content," Mozilla senior veep of legal affairs Danielle Dixon-Thayer said in a blog post.

The first firm to leap at the chance to shovel its DRM into Firefox was Adobe, whose Primetime Content Delivery Module for decoding encrypted content shipped with Firefox 38 on Tuesday. Thayer said various companies, including Netflix, are already evaluating Adobe's tech to see if it meets their requirements.

Mozilla says that because Adobe's CDM is proprietary "black box" software, it has made certain to wrap it in a sandbox within Firefox so that its code can't interfere with the rest of the browser. (Maybe that's why it took a year to get it integrated.)

The CDM will issue an alert when it's on a site that uses DRM-wrapped content, so people who don't want to use it will have the option of bowing out.

"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/12/that_drm_support_in_firefox_you_never_asked_for_its_here/

Just like Fairuse4wm (A software that circumvented DRM in subscription music services like Napster, which was bought out by Rhapsody, Mog, and many more) was circumvented and placed on many sites so too will this new DRM technology. No one wants proprietary media files where as you have to check with a server to play a file and worse yet it will only play on say Windows or Mac. It doesn't work and it is just a way to give the RIAA, MPAA a false sense of security.

As for Adobe Flash? I can tell you that this is one reason Apple refused to allow it on their iPads and iPhones. Android smartphones use to have it available in version 2 of Android but later discontinued it in future versions of Android and there will no longer be Flash support in Android devices. So that pretty much puts Flash Player out of many mobile devices. Yet another reason for HTML 5 instead.

I do know that StreamLicensing's player was supposed to support HTML 5.

That clause is pretty standard with most free software.

It's assumed that anyone running Server software (such as Windows 2008 Server - just one example) is a business and should/can pay licensing fees.

Anyone just running plain vanilla Windows 7, etc. is not a business, and generally doesn't pay (i.e., for personal use).

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are Persons, ALL activities have become personal for both people and corporations.

What's more, since Money is Speech, paying a call girl is now "mutual consent."