On 4/21/06, John Dowdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When I say "open format" I mean it essentially as described in this document: http://www.goland.org/buyingopenstandards (Although, I'd probably go even further than what this document says for what I'd say is "open".)
Adobe/Macromedia requires that you agree to all sorts of conditions before you look at or use those documents. (Which is their legal prerogative to do.)
But, for example, one could NOT create a alternative Flash player using that information. (For example, Gnash could NOT use those documents.)
And because of that it is NOT "open".
(Although, please note that I think Macromedia has been very good with the developer community. And I like Macromedia and their products. But I think it's important to point out that SWF isn't an open format. Doesn't mean it's "bad". Doesn't mean people shouldn't use it. But it's important to note make that note.)
Yeah, I do understand that side of it. (Compatibility is important.) And I understand Adobe/Macromedia's business motivations. (Last I heard, most of Macromedia's income was from licensing the Flash player for devices like cell phones. Not sure what things are like now after the merger.) (And just to say it explicitly, there is NOTHING wrong with having business motivations.)
But other people have other motivations too. For example, the people on the Free software side of things wants a Free (as in Freedom) Flash player.
(And honestly, I think their concerns are very important. No one really classifies them as this, but the Free software movement is really a Civil Rights movement. It's about protecting people's freedom. And getting back freedoms we lost. The Free software movement is as important to all this stuff as the hippocratic oath is to the field of medicine. But again,... I don't want to get into a heated debute.)
I know if Adobe/Macromedia released the Flash player under the GNU GPL (or a license compatible to it) it would make them happy. But... I have a feeling Adobe/Macromedia might be reluctant to do this given the revenue stream their getting from it.
I suppose I'm getting off-topic here though :-)
Would it be possible for Adobe/Macromedia to document the non-codec part of it? (And if possible, would Adobe/Macromedia be willing to make that documentation an "open specification".)
(Going off on a tangent....) Thinking about it, would Adobe/Macromedia be willing to use an Free codec (in addition to these). For example, would Adobe/Macromedia be willing to use the Theora codec too?
That way there could be an "open" SWF, RTMP, etc. (Although there'd be the non-open stuff too.)
You're correct. There is alot of "ambiguity" with the word open. Again, I'll refer you to the following document to let you know what I mean: http://www.goland.org/buyingopenstandards (But again, please keep in mind that I'd probably go even further than what this document says for what I'd say is "open".)
See ya
Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> And (more importantly) Flash isn't an "open format" (like HTML,
> XML, PNG, Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Theora, etc) that everyone has the
> freedom to implement and do whatever they want with.
Actually, since about 1998 or so, anyone can create SWF:
http://www.macromedia.com/licensing/developer/
When I say "open format" I mean it essentially as described in this document: http://www.goland.org/buyingopenstandards (Although, I'd probably go even further than what this document says for what I'd say is "open".)
Adobe/Macromedia requires that you agree to all sorts of conditions before you look at or use those documents. (Which is their legal prerogative to do.)
But, for example, one could NOT create a alternative Flash player using that information. (For example, Gnash could NOT use those documents.)
And because of that it is NOT "open".
(Although, please note that I think Macromedia has been very good with the developer community. And I like Macromedia and their products. But I think it's important to point out that SWF isn't an open format. Doesn't mean it's "bad". Doesn't mean people shouldn't use it. But it's important to note make that note.)
What's controlled is the Macromedia source code for the rendering
engine, so that there aren't the forking and compatibility difficulties
we see among the various WWW browsers.
Yeah, I do understand that side of it. (Compatibility is important.) And I understand Adobe/Macromedia's business motivations. (Last I heard, most of Macromedia's income was from licensing the Flash player for devices like cell phones. Not sure what things are like now after the merger.) (And just to say it explicitly, there is NOTHING wrong with having business motivations.)
But other people have other motivations too. For example, the people on the Free software side of things wants a Free (as in Freedom) Flash player.
(And honestly, I think their concerns are very important. No one really classifies them as this, but the Free software movement is really a Civil Rights movement. It's about protecting people's freedom. And getting back freedoms we lost. The Free software movement is as important to all this stuff as the hippocratic oath is to the field of medicine. But again,... I don't want to get into a heated debute.)
I know if Adobe/Macromedia released the Flash player under the GNU GPL (or a license compatible to it) it would make them happy. But... I have a feeling Adobe/Macromedia might be reluctant to do this given the revenue stream their getting from it.
I suppose I'm getting off-topic here though :-)
> Flash is a proprietary format owned by Adobe/Macromedia. And
> Adobe/Macromedia restricts what can and can't be done with their free/gratis
> Flash player. Not to mention Adobe/Macromedia seems to be the only ones
> allowed to create server side software for Flash... for example, the RTMP
> protocol is completely closed and proprietary... and it's yet to be seen if
> Adobe/Macromedia would invoke the DMCA against anyone who reverse engineered
> it.
There are many non-Adobe servers which work with SWF:
http://osflash.org/open_source_flash_projects#servers_and_remoting
The RTMP issue is trickier, because Adobe *licenses* third-party codecs
(Fraunhoffer, Nelly-Moser, Sorenson, Duck) for inclusion... it's hard to
document what others own.
Would it be possible for Adobe/Macromedia to document the non-codec part of it? (And if possible, would Adobe/Macromedia be willing to make that documentation an "open specification".)
(Going off on a tangent....) Thinking about it, would Adobe/Macromedia be willing to use an Free codec (in addition to these). For example, would Adobe/Macromedia be willing to use the Theora codec too?
That way there could be an "open" SWF, RTMP, etc. (Although there'd be the non-open stuff too.)
For that cussword "proprietary" itself, it starts to get fuzzier the
closer you look at it:
"Is 'Open and Shut' actually open-and-shut?" (March 2003)
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/jd_forum/jd026.html
You're correct. There is alot of "ambiguity" with the word open. Again, I'll refer you to the following document to let you know what I mean: http://www.goland.org/buyingopenstandards (But again, please keep in mind that I'd probably go even further than what this document says for what I'd say is "open".)
See ya
> But having said all that, I do think it is acceptable to have Flash as one
> of many different options of watching a vlog. But it should NOT be the only
> one.
I agree... arbitrary prohibitions aren't useful.
jd
[...]
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Make Television http://maketelevision.com/
SPONSORED LINKS
| Fireant | Individual | Use |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
