Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
"Hum... *only* sound and video? All that content is a pretty big deal"
Jase, you are misquoting me - I didn't say it was a small deal , and
re-reading my email, it didn't carry my point below. (Note to self: it's not
enough just to think about writing something.)
My main aim in listing those 3 points was to say I can't see the point of
faithfully re-creating the Flash player in an open source style when really,
there are only those 3 areas in which it has the drop on JS. This advantage
surely cannot last forever.
Regarding the points you raise, I'm not convinced of the usefulness of
cross-browser clientside storage, I don't hear a lot of users clamouring for
it since the predominant use case is a single browser on a single machine.
Anything else suggests a return to the days of "this site is best viewed in
{{browser}}" so users have to switch browser in the middle of their session.
As for adverts, totally with the "necessary evil" aspect of them. I don't
like them and as long as I'm free to use AdBlock Plus or equivalent, they
can carry on making them and paying for my favourite sites. I'm aware of the
parasitic nature of this browsing mode, so every once in a while I disable
the AdBlock and randomly click on a few ads.
S.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>- Hum... *only* sound and video? All that content is a pretty big
>deal.
>- Cross-browser client-side storage? Sure, you can do it in JS,
>sometimes, using one of many APIs, but flash's shared object could make a
>good fallback (I've not tried this though).
>- Don't most JS uploaders will use a (hidden? 1px by 1px?) flash
>file in the page to do the heavy lifting (again, I've not tried this)?
> Seems
>Flickr's does.
>- Pretty much all display advertising on the web is done in Flash
>(where rather a lot of money is spent, apparently)
>
> J
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Once you remove games, I believe there are only 3 things Flash player
> > has that cannot be recreated with html + css + javascript:
> >
> > 1. binary socket (Audio, Video)
> > 2. XML socket
> > 3. no page refresh file upload with user feedback events (% loaded etc)
> >
> > I'm hoping someone can remove item 3 for me with a link to some fancy JS
> > uploader
> >
> > S.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the
> > > > legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break
> > > > misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the
> > > > freedom of software users being compromised.
> > > >
> > > > That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is
> > > > counter-productive precisely because it supports something that
> > > isn't
> > > > an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was
> > > an
> > > > open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or
> > > > DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could
> > > > provide such a standard that would be really positive.
> > > The BBC have already announced that they are working on a standard
> > > with
> > > a number of other companies.
> > > http://www.p2p-next.org/
> > > -
> > > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe,
> > > please visit
> > > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
> > > Unofficial list archive:
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jason Cartwright
> Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +44(0)2070313161
>
> www.jasoncartwright.com
> +44(0)7976500729
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
Richard Smedley wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:55 +, Jason Cartwright wrote: >> Pretty much all display advertising on the web is done in >> Flash (where rather a lot of money is spent, apparently) > > Yes, I'd noticed other people's computers seemed to > carry umpteen more ads than mine on most websites ;^) The internet has adverts? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865 David - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:55 +, Jason Cartwright wrote: > Pretty much all display advertising on the web is done in > Flash (where rather a lot of money is spent, apparently) Yes, I'd noticed other people's computers seemed to carry umpteen more ads than mine on most websites ;^) - Richard - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
- Hum... *only* sound and video? All that content is a pretty big deal. - Cross-browser client-side storage? Sure, you can do it in JS, sometimes, using one of many APIs, but flash's shared object could make a good fallback (I've not tried this though). - Don't most JS uploaders will use a (hidden? 1px by 1px?) flash file in the page to do the heavy lifting (again, I've not tried this)? Seems Flickr's does. - Pretty much all display advertising on the web is done in Flash (where rather a lot of money is spent, apparently) J On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Once you remove games, I believe there are only 3 things Flash player has > that cannot be recreated with html + css + javascript: > > 1. binary socket (Audio, Video) > 2. XML socket > 3. no page refresh file upload with user feedback events (% loaded etc) > > I'm hoping someone can remove item 3 for me with a link to some fancy JS > uploader > > S. > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the > > > legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break > > > misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the > > > freedom of software users being compromised. > > > > > > That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is > > > counter-productive precisely because it supports something that isn't > > > an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was an > > > open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or > > > DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could > > > provide such a standard that would be really positive. > > The BBC have already announced that they are working on a standard with > > a number of other companies. > > http://www.p2p-next.org/ > > - > > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > > please visit > > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > > Unofficial list archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > > > -- Jason Cartwright Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44(0)2070313161 www.jasoncartwright.com +44(0)7976500729
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
Once you remove games, I believe there are only 3 things Flash player has that cannot be recreated with html + css + javascript: 1. binary socket (Audio, Video) 2. XML socket 3. no page refresh file upload with user feedback events (% loaded etc) I'm hoping someone can remove item 3 for me with a link to some fancy JS uploader S. On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the > > legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break > > misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the > > freedom of software users being compromised. > > > > That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is > > counter-productive precisely because it supports something that isn't > > an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was an > > open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or > > DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could > > provide such a standard that would be really positive. > The BBC have already announced that they are working on a standard with > a number of other companies. > http://www.p2p-next.org/ > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ >
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the freedom of software users being compromised. That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is counter-productive precisely because it supports something that isn't an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was an open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could provide such a standard that would be really positive. The BBC have already announced that they are working on a standard with a number of other companies. http://www.p2p-next.org/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
I would still agree though, despite the stream of valid points about the BBC who shouldn't have used flash. I still agree that now they have, to get themselves out of such a nasty situation, considering funding gnash development so it can run on set top boxes, phones etc. is not a bad idea. obviously some pople diagree with me. On 04/03/2008, Adam Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope the BBC does not spend licence fee money on the development of > Gnash. This money should be spent to benefit the majority of the > license payers, not just a very small group. > > I'm sure once Gnash has got the capability to run the flash used on the > BBC website they will happily support it. -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 22:32:02 Adam Leach wrote: ... > I hope the BBC does not spend licence fee money on the development of > Gnash. This money should be spent to benefit the majority of the > license payers, not just a very small group. Your point of targeting licence fee money to benefit the majority of license fee payers rather than small groups is a very common one. (However, it's not universal - think "minority" programming - for example. Sky at Night :) I don't think that's the question raised. The question I think you're raising there is _will_ it benefit the majority of license fee payers? I'm trying below to _not base_ my post on personal beliefs of right and wrong. That basis isn't testable, measurable and repeatable and is subject to debate and flame wars (as well as real world laws). I'll leave arguments based on belief to others. I'll just ask some questions. However, based on raw numbers of Gnash users right now the answer is clearly not - Gnash users are not a majority - which is presumably what you were referring to. That said, that's only one metric. There are others, and furthermore there are more possibilities here than just "who uses what platform right now". I'm going to base it on the following observation: * Many IETF standards (among others) start off in the following way: * Someone implements something. * Someone else implements something compatible (either due to reverse engineering, or based on an informational RFC or other source) * After significant amounts of faffing around, due to the existance of multiple implementations and common consensus, that thing can become a standard. Now, ignoring the faffing around part which I did note can be quite significant (as well as incidental, but there is often faff)... The next observation is that flash is very much a defacto standard at present with a fair few incomplete reimplementations (gnash is one, there are others). That leads me to wonder the following: 1 If Gnash, or any other implementation, reaches the stage of compatibility with Adobe's implementation, then it will reach the "multiple implementations" criteria required by various standards groups. Would there be a measurable, testable benefit to users at that stage? 2 It it did, would Adobe be interested in standardising Flash? I can see various good business reasons in favour of this, but given they are very much in a dominant position there at present, I can see lots of good business reasons for them not to do this _at present_ . 3 Would it be beneficial to the majority of license fee payers to have a standards based inbrowser virtual machine in the form of a flash compatible engine - especially if it was extensible to support more video codecs by default? (Something pretty doable if its an open system since you can define an appropriate interface) Two examples here are SMPTE VC1 and VC2. Given open standards are generally a good thing for consumers, based on significant amounts of evidence (rather than just personal beliefs of right and wrong) in the past, is it reasonable to assume "yes" to the question in 3) above? That's where we enter belief since we hit a value judgement based on past evidence. Based on past evidence of the benefits of open standards and the fact that flash is very heavily used, I would personally say the balance of evidence suggests that it would be a good idea. However that's personal judgement. Regarding 2) - would it happen? Realistically, it requires common consensus, which would HAVE to include Adobe. Do I think they're ready? No idea - there's mixed signals coming from them. They have standardised PDF in the past though, so maybe. So again at this point we again hit value judgement. I did put a view here, but I think it's more interesting if I don't. Also, I feel it's less testable, or measurable, making it much less supportable opinion. My *guess* is not soon, but not suprised if they did. If it is viewed as beneficial in 3) and that my guess is right in 2) that Adobe wouldn't standardise until there was a complete competing implementation, then we come to 1). So now we come to 1). Out of all the implementations out there which exist to varying degrees of completeness, why support any particular reimplementation? Again, I can't answer that, but I can put some observations. It's possible after all that completeness of implementation won't lead to widespread uptake. After all, most users already have an installed version, and have little incentive to upgrade, unless they percieve a practical immediate benefit. (eg access to content or functionality) That IMO requires something more than "just" reimplementation. You'll note I'm not choosing any particular reimplementation of flash. I can't see any specific benefits of one over any other at present - other than feature completeness of reimplementation (which as
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the freedom of software users being compromised. That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is counter-productive precisely because it supports something that isn't an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was an open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could provide such a standard that would be really positive. - Rob. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
> If only people would make real-world, rational and pragmatic arguments > about FOSS then this adversarial stuff would be less strident. > > The argument (IMO) should be about the use of an open standard, not Adobe > vs Gnash. I agree totally, this cannot be emphasised enough. > > If your OS/device/whatever can't do published standards then tough. > OTO if the BBC supports and promotes proprietary standards (cf Microsoft > OOXML) then that's more of an issue. > Especially with @10% (and rising) of BBC traffic coming from non "Windows PC" type platforms. The interesting thing here is that clearly mobile devices and set top boxes are increasingly being used to view multimedia content online (and offline for that matter), yet media solutions (especially those where DRM is a key consideration) are geared very much toward Windows PC's. The BBC would do well to provide a platform agnostic, well documented and standardised solution to media distribution. > I think that *that* is the reason that the BBC have a duty to > counterbalance their support for Adobe/Flash with support for more open > alternatives. Again, this cannot be emphasised enough. Andy Halsall. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
As an ardent FOSS supporter : "Well said" :) [really - no sarcasm] If only people would make real-world, rational and pragmatic arguments about FOSS then this adversarial stuff would be less strident. The argument (IMO) should be about the use of an open standard, not Adobe vs Gnash. If your OS/device/whatever can't do published standards then tough. OTO if the BBC supports and promotes proprietary standards (cf Microsoft OOXML) then that's more of an issue. In that case I think the BBC (and any organisation capable of reviewing the behaviour of vendors for the past 15 years) would be well advised to consider the competitive landscape. Vendor lock-in is a well understood strategy that provides little, if any, benefit to the purchasing organisation in the medium/long term. Only if failure is expected does planning for the long-term makes no senses. I know (and care) little about "Chief Systems" - however the story is reasonable. The BBC are providing a service that Adobe has a veto over - they (Adobe) can *prevent* entrepreneurs from starting up with linux-based devices. (Tivo anyone?) I think that *that* is the reason that the BBC have a duty to counterbalance their support for Adobe/Flash with support for more open alternatives. Dave's argument would (IMHO) have been better phrased in these terms than by asking for a hand-out. David Richard Lockwood wrote: > Quite. I seem to remember Mr Crossland arguing vehemently when the > iPlayer beta came out that the BBC shouldn't be spending money on it > because it didn't benefit all users. > > Pot, kettle, etc. > > Rich. > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Adam Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I hope the BBC does not spend licence fee money on the development of >> Gnash. This money should be spent to benefit the majority of the >> license payers, not just a very small group. >> >> I'm sure once Gnash has got the capability to run the flash used on the >> BBC website they will happily support it. >> >> Adam >> >> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 22:19 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> It seems Gnash is attracting a lot of funding and direct support these >>> days... >>> >>> When will the BBC support access to the Flash-based parts of its >>> websites with free software by helping the Gnash project? >>> >>> -- Forwarded message -- >>> From: James Northcott / Chief Systems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: 4 Mar 2008 21:45 >>> Subject: [Gnash-dev] Gnash, Flash, Adobe, and cash >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> My business partners and I are currently working on a Linux-based >>> application that requires Flash playback. >>> >>> Adobe has specifically excluded our application from bundling a Flash >>> player under the terms of their free distribution license, and our >>> efforts to negotiate some sort of paid licensing agreement have >>> stalled. At this point, we are looking for alternatives, and it would >>> seem that helping Gnash would be a viable option for us. >>> >>> This leads me to ask the following questions: >>> >>> 1. What is stopping the Gnash team from fully implementing the >>> Flash 9 file format? Where could we help the most? >>> >>> I understand there are some legal issues with those who have agreed >>> to the Adobe EULA making contributions to Gnash. I'm also sure that >>> there are manpower issues, as well as funding issues. I would >>> appreciate someone taking the time to explain where the largest issues >>> lie. We have some programming resources available, although we have >>> no experience with the Gnash codebase at all, as well as a potentially >>> large number of sample Flash movies that play correctly in the Adobe >>> player but not in Gnash. >>> >>> 2. What kind of monetary investment would be necessary to >>> significantly speed up Gnash development? >>> >>> I realize that this may be a difficult question to answer, but we are >>> quite serious. We were prepared to pay Adobe to license their player, >>> but this seems to have hit a dead end - could our contribution to >>> Gnash help speed up development, and if so, how large a contribution >>> would be required to overcome the blockers for Flash 9 support? >>> >>> We understand the open source model, and we are not interested in >>> owning the copyright or changing the license of the Gnash code. We >>> are simply willing to pay to get Flash 9 playback in our product, if >>> this ends up being within our budget. >>> >>> I appreciate any feedback you have for me. >>> >>> James >>> >>> > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/b
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
Quite. I seem to remember Mr Crossland arguing vehemently when the iPlayer beta came out that the BBC shouldn't be spending money on it because it didn't benefit all users. Pot, kettle, etc. Rich. On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Adam Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope the BBC does not spend licence fee money on the development of > Gnash. This money should be spent to benefit the majority of the > license payers, not just a very small group. > > I'm sure once Gnash has got the capability to run the flash used on the > BBC website they will happily support it. > > Adam > > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 22:19 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It seems Gnash is attracting a lot of funding and direct support these > > days... > > > > When will the BBC support access to the Flash-based parts of its > > websites with free software by helping the Gnash project? > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > From: James Northcott / Chief Systems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 4 Mar 2008 21:45 > > Subject: [Gnash-dev] Gnash, Flash, Adobe, and cash > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Hello, > > > > My business partners and I are currently working on a Linux-based > > application that requires Flash playback. > > > > Adobe has specifically excluded our application from bundling a Flash > > player under the terms of their free distribution license, and our > > efforts to negotiate some sort of paid licensing agreement have > > stalled. At this point, we are looking for alternatives, and it would > > seem that helping Gnash would be a viable option for us. > > > > This leads me to ask the following questions: > > > > 1. What is stopping the Gnash team from fully implementing the > > Flash 9 file format? Where could we help the most? > > > > I understand there are some legal issues with those who have agreed > > to the Adobe EULA making contributions to Gnash. I'm also sure that > > there are manpower issues, as well as funding issues. I would > > appreciate someone taking the time to explain where the largest issues > > lie. We have some programming resources available, although we have > > no experience with the Gnash codebase at all, as well as a potentially > > large number of sample Flash movies that play correctly in the Adobe > > player but not in Gnash. > > > > 2. What kind of monetary investment would be necessary to > > significantly speed up Gnash development? > > > > I realize that this may be a difficult question to answer, but we are > > quite serious. We were prepared to pay Adobe to license their player, > > but this seems to have hit a dead end - could our contribution to > > Gnash help speed up development, and if so, how large a contribution > > would be required to overcome the blockers for Flash 9 support? > > > > We understand the open source model, and we are not interested in > > owning the copyright or changing the license of the Gnash code. We > > are simply willing to pay to get Flash 9 playback in our product, if > > this ends up being within our budget. > > > > I appreciate any feedback you have for me. > > > > James > > > > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
I hope the BBC does not spend licence fee money on the development of Gnash. This money should be spent to benefit the majority of the license payers, not just a very small group. I'm sure once Gnash has got the capability to run the flash used on the BBC website they will happily support it. Adam On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 22:19 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: > Hi, > > It seems Gnash is attracting a lot of funding and direct support these days... > > When will the BBC support access to the Flash-based parts of its > websites with free software by helping the Gnash project? > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: James Northcott / Chief Systems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 4 Mar 2008 21:45 > Subject: [Gnash-dev] Gnash, Flash, Adobe, and cash > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hello, > > My business partners and I are currently working on a Linux-based > application that requires Flash playback. > > Adobe has specifically excluded our application from bundling a Flash > player under the terms of their free distribution license, and our > efforts to negotiate some sort of paid licensing agreement have > stalled. At this point, we are looking for alternatives, and it would > seem that helping Gnash would be a viable option for us. > > This leads me to ask the following questions: > > 1. What is stopping the Gnash team from fully implementing the > Flash 9 file format? Where could we help the most? > > I understand there are some legal issues with those who have agreed > to the Adobe EULA making contributions to Gnash. I'm also sure that > there are manpower issues, as well as funding issues. I would > appreciate someone taking the time to explain where the largest issues > lie. We have some programming resources available, although we have > no experience with the Gnash codebase at all, as well as a potentially > large number of sample Flash movies that play correctly in the Adobe > player but not in Gnash. > > 2. What kind of monetary investment would be necessary to > significantly speed up Gnash development? > > I realize that this may be a difficult question to answer, but we are > quite serious. We were prepared to pay Adobe to license their player, > but this seems to have hit a dead end - could our contribution to > Gnash help speed up development, and if so, how large a contribution > would be required to overcome the blockers for Flash 9 support? > > We understand the open source model, and we are not interested in > owning the copyright or changing the license of the Gnash code. We > are simply willing to pay to get Flash 9 playback in our product, if > this ends up being within our budget. > > I appreciate any feedback you have for me. > > James > > > ___ > Gnash-dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev > > > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash
Hi, It seems Gnash is attracting a lot of funding and direct support these days... When will the BBC support access to the Flash-based parts of its websites with free software by helping the Gnash project? -- Forwarded message -- From: James Northcott / Chief Systems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 4 Mar 2008 21:45 Subject: [Gnash-dev] Gnash, Flash, Adobe, and cash To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, My business partners and I are currently working on a Linux-based application that requires Flash playback. Adobe has specifically excluded our application from bundling a Flash player under the terms of their free distribution license, and our efforts to negotiate some sort of paid licensing agreement have stalled. At this point, we are looking for alternatives, and it would seem that helping Gnash would be a viable option for us. This leads me to ask the following questions: 1. What is stopping the Gnash team from fully implementing the Flash 9 file format? Where could we help the most? I understand there are some legal issues with those who have agreed to the Adobe EULA making contributions to Gnash. I'm also sure that there are manpower issues, as well as funding issues. I would appreciate someone taking the time to explain where the largest issues lie. We have some programming resources available, although we have no experience with the Gnash codebase at all, as well as a potentially large number of sample Flash movies that play correctly in the Adobe player but not in Gnash. 2. What kind of monetary investment would be necessary to significantly speed up Gnash development? I realize that this may be a difficult question to answer, but we are quite serious. We were prepared to pay Adobe to license their player, but this seems to have hit a dead end - could our contribution to Gnash help speed up development, and if so, how large a contribution would be required to overcome the blockers for Flash 9 support? We understand the open source model, and we are not interested in owning the copyright or changing the license of the Gnash code. We are simply willing to pay to get Flash 9 playback in our product, if this ends up being within our budget. I appreciate any feedback you have for me. James ___ Gnash-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion only, not the views of any employers. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
