[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Flash instructions updated



On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:12 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:09:18AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 13:25 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote:
> > > Based on the recent conversations on this list, I have updated:
> > > 
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flash
> > > 

> > As the page is generically named, and Fedora is a project with a strong
> > emphasis on F/OSS, I would suggest the page should more prominently
> > discuss and advocate F/OSS alternatives (gnash and swfdec) and position
> > the Adobe plugin as a fallback for cases where those solutions are not
> > sufficient. Also, it should refer more specifically to the Adobe plugin
> > when saying things like "Flash is Non-Free Software". WDYT?
> 
> I added a top-side admonition, taking the text directly from our
> existing [[ForbiddenItems]] page.  We should maintain equivalency
> between those pages.  (I would have liked to transclude just that
> section, but didn't know how.)
> 
> Because, at least, (1) the use of Adobe's plugin is not illegal
> anywhere to our knowledge, and (2) the use of Adobe's software
> repository does not, as far as we know, present problems of potential
> contributory infringement, this page is permissible.  I agree we need
> an admonition to clarify this is an *alternative* to FOSS, not a
> method of first resort for people who care about software freedom.

I think the page now looks great and appropriately commented.

I would, however, challenge you in your statement / implication that
people who would use a proprietary plugin like Adobe Flash on Fedora -
even as a first resort - somehow do not care about software freedom.
That's a very strong and IMO misguided statement to make ideologically
about some very active members of the Fedora community, including me.

I would submit that the vast majority of people using Fedora today DO
care about software freedom and would prefer to see something like
Adobe's plugin released under a GPL (or like) license. But they also
still need to get work done right now. And unless / until Adobe licenses
their code, or gnash and swfdec mature to the point they are reasonable
substitutes for most use cases (it could happen), the non-Free Adobe
plugin and its current licensing terms are a practical compromise.

I really hope you didn't mean what you wrote in the context in which it
appears.

-- 
======================
"Only two things are infinite,
the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former."

-- Albert Einstein




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]