Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:41:51 -0700 From: James <oscartheduck@gmail.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> Cc: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, questions@freebsd.org, "Heiko Wundram \(Beenic\)" <wundram@beenic.net> Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? Message-ID: <47B0B30F.9020708@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47B0AF73.6030901@chuckr.org> References: <47AFC80B.8090303@gmail.com> <47B05924.5000405@cs.okstate.edu> <47B05C7A.80602@pacific.net.sg> <200802111540.34420.wundram@beenic.net> <20080211161507.6e82fbd4@anthesphoria.net> <47B06A39.7090708@pacific.net.sg> <20080211210835.23c11096@anthesphoria.net> <20080211211052.X5691@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <47B0AF73.6030901@chuckr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >>>> YouTube? Isn't the right spelling YouPorn? >>>> >>> No, it isn't. If you find nothing worth watching on *You*Tube, it >>> doesn't mean that others can't find interesting things. For example, I >>> find there a lot of good and difficult-to-find material from some fields >>> of art. >>> >> get this interestinf stuff down to your disk with youtube-dl, then watch >> with mplayer. >> >> at least you will have it on your disk, not download each time as >> youtube does everything to prevent caching the stuff. >> as it's exactly agains efficiency, they have a reason to do this. >> >> any explanations why? i think because then they are able to keep >> "control" on the stuff, being able to remove anything at will, with no >> copy on users computers. >> > > All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't > know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in > one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who > browses without a flashplayer knows. > > I dunno which license folks have been reading, This thread has gone on so > long, I can't keep track anymore, but I do know that the link I saw from > Adobe's site, referring to Flashplayer, doesn't mention (at all, even in > passing) either Linux OR FreeBSD. They do ask you know to modify it > (decompile, whatever) but there is an explicit loophole left, in order for > folks to be able to adapt it to run on their platform. > > As far as the complaint about distributing it, we have LOTS of software in > the same category, which seems to be possible for us to deal with, such as, > well, anyone ever heard of Sun's Java? If we can do Java, we can do the > flashplugin just the same. > > Someone has their dander up over licensing agreements (that's possible, I > get that way) and are purposely interpreting the license as evilly as they > can, but they are the one's who are preventing it from working on FreeBSD, > not Adobe. Yes, those licenses are a poor joke, but if you ask me, so is > Linux's. > > Jeeze, can't you find something more important to get upset about, like the > high price of beer? > I'm with you there. Of course, getting a decent beer in the US is a chore, too. I can't actually see the issue; the makefiles grab the files from wherever they're told to. If the only place listed to wget the flashplugin file from is adobe's site, then FreeBSD isn't a redistributor and we're within the terms of the license. James
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47B0B30F.9020708>