[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

"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]