makeing .exe's
VIking
is there a utility that will just compile an .exe file for IBM
we have Director on the Mac and they refuse to spend the 1K
just to compile IBM exe's
Boaz
Windows EXE.
--
Regards,
Boaz
Director Technical Support
m a c r o m e d i a
"VIking" <vik...@bifrostpro.com> wrote in message
news:B79443CA.1F1%vik...@bifrostpro.com...
Chris Perkins
use to playback your movie on the other platform without needing to purchase
Director for PC.
A stub projector is just a projector that plays any movie in the same folder
that has a certain name (like "mainmovie.dir") . To use it you'll usually
have to rename your movie.
Chris Perkins
Media Lab, Inc.
http://www.medialab.com
http://www.photowebber.com
"Boaz" <suppo...@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:9kmlci$k1o$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
Gretchen Macdowall
<cper...@medialab.com> wrote:
> I believe UpdateStage (www.updatestage.com) has "stub" projectors you can
> use to playback your movie on the other platform without needing to purchase
> Director for PC.
>
I used to, but then there was a thread on Direct-L and confirmed by a
Macromedia staffer, don't remember who, that held that it was a violation
of the license agreement. I have also had other staff tell me that it
wasn't. I still don't know what the definitive actual scoop is.
The thread wasn't talking about the stubs on my site specifically. In that
case it was somebody who wanted to make a projector for somebody else.
Anyway, I decided to err on the side of caution and I no longer distribute
them.
Gretchen Macdowall
updateStage, inc.
http://www.updatestage.com/
Information and Xtras for Director developers
Chris Perkins
That's pretty hardcore on Macromedia's part, if, in fact, that is their
policy. Someone should state definitively what the policy is. Keeping in
mind that the tight software economy is not only being hard on MM, but their
customers as well.
I've always thought "playback" should be free. Our Xtras, for instance,
require an unlock code to be used in a development situation (importing) but
playback everywhere is free. If you don't have the PC copy of Effector
Set, just download the trial version and use that as your playback engine
when you distribute.
Chris
http://www.medialab.com
http://www.photowebber.com
"Gretchen Macdowall" <g...@updatestage.com> wrote in message
news:gcm-060801...@gniqncy-c02-115.port.shore.net...
Tom Higgins
I was not that Macromedian...
</pre-emptive duck>
It's all there in the End User License Agreement (EULA) that you, ahem, read
and agree to when you install Director. ;) But alas, it's in legalese...
I'll look into this and see what I can offer in regards to an "official
statement". No guarantees kids but I'll do my best.
Cheers,
Tom Higgins
Product Specialist - Director Team
Mark A. Boyd
>
> It's all there in the End User License Agreement (EULA) that you, ahem, read
> and agree to when you install Director. ;) But alas, it's in legalese...
>
> I'll look into this and see what I can offer in regards to an "official
> statement". No guarantees kids but I'll do my best.
Please do. If you can get a definitive answer, see if you can get it written up
in a technote or some other easily obtainable medium. Heck, even if they don't
post it on the WWW, if they just let all MM employees who interact with us know
the definite answer, it will help clear things up.
There have been several posts by Macromedia employees (current and former) that
conflict with each other on the subject - no fault of theirs, as you say, it's
in legalese. I half suspect the lawyers at MM left it ambiguous intentionally.
My most recent references on the topic are clearly prohibitive:
There was a rather long discussion on Direct-L last year where James Khazar
seemed to put a lid on the subject:
http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0011A&L=direct-l&P=R1606
And yet another thread where John Dowdell reported having, at one time, a verbal
OK and was attempting to push for getting it in writing:
http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0012C&L=direct-l&D=0&P=9094
Do you think, maybe, you and JD can team up and put some pressure on that action
item mentioned in his message? Or, if it was rejected, maybe that can be posted
as well - even negative information on this is better than the thick fog of
ambiguity that everybody is in now.
There are several other discussions both in the newsgroups (though, perhaps back
before Google took over dejanews and wiped out many years of the archives) and
on other lists. Until somebody can get the bottom line written for non-lawyers
to understand, it will continuously re-surface everywhere. I suspect it may be a
fairly frequent support call, if not to tech support then to Marketing.
P.S. I don't have D8.5, so if the language has been cleared up in the latest
EULA . . . don't bother reading the above ;-)
--
Mark A. Boyd
Keep-On-Learnin' :)
Tom Higgins
> Please do. If you can get a definitive answer, see if you can get it
written up
> in a technote or some other easily obtainable medium...
I'll make sure that whatever information I do get a hold of gets propagated
through all needed channels (individuals who interact here with you folks,
to the support team for a tech note, etc.). When I do have any further
information I'll make posts here and in the director.lingo newsgroup as well
(including any technote numbers/URLs).
> P.S. I don't have D8.5, so if the language has been cleared up in the
latest
> EULA . . . don't bother reading the above ;-)
Ummm, yeah right. Legal folks actually making the EULA readable to folks
like us? Not likely...
Seriously though, I don't believe the portion of the EULA related to our
discussion was changed at all (I don't think any part of it was changed
actually).
Ok, I think my bloodhound has the scent of someone from the legal
department, they can't run all day y'know. ;)