On 8/8/07, Freddie(r) Cristalab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Zárate wrote:] > > Is the current license preventing another > > players (like GNash)? > > > > Answer: No. It's just forcing GNash team wasting time in trivial stuff > > instead of time creating a bug-free swf player that will run on some > > platforms Adobe just don't support now. > > > > Exactly. > > I used to think like you, Zwetan. In fact, I wrote an article about why it > was a bad idea to open the player (Deleting the current problems in the SWF > specs license). But in this world, right now, it's just not true and > realistic your position. >
let's say that for now I keep the "realistic" word in memory > The best option will be to allow a open source-like process in the > development of the player. Like Tamarin. Everyone can use their skills to > give code to the player, but Adobe will retain control in the distribution > and release of new versions of the player. I really don't think alternatives > and forks to the Flash Player will rise like Firefox. Firefox is good and > widely used mainly because IE sucks so much. The player, on the other hand > is THE way to play correctly all SWFs. The support for forks of the Player > will be minimum from the developer community and, while they will surely > exist, it just can be good for Adobe (As the player will be more used [think > amd64 and ppc linux] and SWFs will be even more omnipresent) and it's not > gonna be like CSS support. > memory dump: realistic sorry, but thinking about amd64 and linux PPC support is for me not realistic, and what Adobe already support (flash player 9 on Linux x86) is much more realistic to me. Anyway you put it, open sourcing the flahs player is a risk, first for Adobe, but also for the people coding for that flash player. My guess is even if Adobe wanted to open source the flash player, they need at least one or few "tests" that does not bring so much risk, hence the Tamarin project. Tamarin is pretty new, not only Adobe open sourced it but continue to have numerous people working on it, even for Mozilla folks that must be something new as a situation. On top of that they opened their bug database, plan to open the Flex SDK, etc. If all these as I guess are "tests" in the open source territories, if those tests reveal to be successfull, this could lead Adobe to decide (or not) to open source the flash player itself. But I don't see really Adobe (or any other company in the same situation) just open sourcing the flash player like that or because under pressure to support things as Linux PPC when they already support Linux x86. Also when you say "Everyone can use their skills to give code to the player", I disagree a lot, it's not anybody even among the most skilled than can participate in such project. > Of course, if Microsoft decide to not include the Adobe player on Windows 7, > but their own, then Adobe *could be* screwed and we as developers will have > a rough time. But I don't think it will happen with all the antitrust > policies they are facing. > > Long story short: An open source Player whose development will be controlled > by Adobe (Like Firefox is controlled by Mozilla Fundation) will allow SWF to > be standard PDF-like, will allow the people with specific wished for > features to implement them without pain (And without a "CSS hell", 'cause > they will be the only people using the fork) and will mantain a global > platform where we can develop and design without fear of incompatibilities. > Again, because, in reality, the Flash Player from Adobe will continue to be > the most dominating one in 99%/1% proportions > I really wish such scenario could happen, really, but it not gonna happen just not right now. First, such structure is really really really hard to put in place, second even if it could be a good thing there could be also bad things, like slowing the flash player yearly updates. Imagine a flash player updated every 2/3 years, it would slow down the whole dynamic around the platform and this would arm every flash coders around. > Of course, I suspect, as other folks on the community, that Adobe is > planning a "Flash Player in a chip" in the far future (In internet time, so, > 5-10 years). I don't know well how open the player will affect the plan (If > the plan is real and not crazy talk of mine, I suspect it is) but maybe in a > paranoid scenario, it will. I just think it is a good decision, not the best > or the most needed, to open the player. It will also generate A HELL of a > good PR for Adobe, so it's win/win. > > So, Zwetan, and hopefully Adobe too, let's be open-minded. There are good > things with the idea. > I think no one is really against the idea in itself, but it's not *that* easy. To end that long thread people should also consider the Tamarin effect, which is all due to Adobe it already generated in a very short time very interesting projects ActionMonkey, ScreamingMonkey, etc. and even with the very worst case scenario: the flash player to never become open source, people would be able to fall back on a Tamarin browser plugin and/or Firefox3 to reuse their AS3/4 code/skills/projects + XUL or + HTML DOM, which is not bad at all and would surely integrate faster and better for such things as screen reader or other needed features. cheers, zwetan _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
