5 ms·

Could someone please explain to me how Flash isn't open? To my knowledge, everything about flash is open other than Adobe's IDE. The spec has been released, the

by kgrad 16y ago

Could someone please explain to me how Flash isn't open? To my knowledge, everything about flash is open other than Adobe's IDE. The spec has been released, the sdk is OSS and anyone is free to compile to SWF... Am I mistaken here?

pmjordan 16y ago
The player certainly very much isn't open, aside from the Tamarin runtime.
- kgrad 16y ago
  Can you qualify that statement? edit: You are correct, the player provided by Adobe is not open. However, anyone is free to make their own player, one alternative player is Gnash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash
  - pmjordan 16y ago
    I can. "License: Proprietary freeware EULA" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Player http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Player And the argument that anyone is free to re-implement is just as valid for anything. The fact of the matter is that thousands of man-years have gone into building Flash Player, and replicating them is far from a straightforward task. The spec is huge, and there are millions of .swf files to which an alternative implementation needs to be compatible. It's a bit like suggesting someone re-implement Windows if they don't like Microsoft's version of it. It's open, right? Anyone can look up the ABI for user space executables, kernel drivers, etc., so how hard could it be? ReactOS (or Wine) hard, as it turns out. Note also that for the supposedly open components, Adobe controls them so tightly, they are only "look but don't touch" open. Openness is only useful insofar as you can actually do something with the information or code. They maintain this control precisely because they have an iron grip on the player. There is no point for a third party to extend the Flash spec or compiler, because they can't realistically build an implementation that actually runs code obeying the forked spec. It's as ridiculous as creating a driver to run on a hypothetical version of Windows. Yes, you can do it, but it's also completely pointless.
    - kgrad 16y ago
      Thanks for the link, you are certainly correct that adobes player is proprietary, but I provided you with a link to an alternate player... Just because something is hard to reproduce doesn't make it closed. Do you consider java closed because Sun/Oracle makes the best applet viewer? I am not trying to say Adobe is guilt free or anything, but it looks to me like they are making it as open as they can, unless I am missing something.
      - jorgecastillo 16y ago
        Java is licensed under the GPL.
      - pmjordan 16y ago
        No, I consider Java to be open because it is licensed under the GPL, an Open Source/Free Software license. but it looks to me like they are making it as open as they can With all due respect, you're either trolling or extremely ignorant for someone reading HN. In case of the latter, please educate yourself and read up on the difference between proprietary and open source software. Also take note that "freeware" does not fall under the definition of "open" software. FWIW I will flag any further trollish comments.
        kgrad 16y ago
        I am sorry if you are offended by my ignorance. I am not currently arguing that the flash player provided by adobe is open. I conceded a while ago that the flash player provided by adobe is proprietary. However, an alternate flash player exists and you can program SWF without ever touching an Adobe product. There is a spec and open tools for doing so. I was simply under the impression that Flash was open minus Adobes implementation and am trying to see why everyone is saying it is not. edit: I don't understand why me disagreeing with you automatically makes me a troll. People are quick to jump on people who don't agree with their viewpoints.
  - jorgecastillo 16y ago
    Adobe Uses DMCA On Protocol It Promised To Open http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/22/1254246 http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/22/1254246 How do Gnash developers work with the Adobe/Macromedia EULA? http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/25#eula http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/25#eula Read this two links and come back to discuss about flash openness.
    - kgrad 16y ago
      edit: apparently adobe did open the RTMP spec? http://www.adobe.com/devnet/rtmp/ http://www.adobe.com/devnet/rtmp/ How does Gnash being built without Adobe tools do anything but further proving that you don't have to use adobe products to use/work with flash? I am not claiming with authority that Flash is open, I am just trying to see how it is closed. So far it looks open to me. I'm not even a Flash developer, so please forgive me if I am not understanding properly.
      - jorgecastillo 16y ago
        Did you really read the links? I can't do your homework for you. "I'm not even a Flash developer, so please forgive me if I am not understanding properly." Me neither I am just an average guy that likes computers. I am not even a developer of anything. But it is very clear to me that flash is not open and Adobe does not intent for it to be other than for PR. So far I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. If Adobe would open source (GPLv2/BSD/Apache, etc) flash and would give the future development and implementation to an independent party (W3C?) made of various corporations, organizations and individuals that have stakes at flash I'd be all for flash. P.S. I think a BSD/MIT/Apache license would be better.
Terretta 16y ago
Consider the "definition" shared in the letter. Compare that definition to WebKit, then to Flash.
- kgrad 16y ago
  Which part of the definition does flash violate? Also, Apple doesn't give much credit to KDE with WebKit, they certainly like to imply that they are very open with it without mentioning its origins...
  - jorgecastillo 16y ago
    Do you work for Adobe? This is your first day commenting and you seem to defend flash as if your life depended on it.
    - kgrad 16y ago
      I don't work for adobe, nor do I even code in flash. I am just ignorant on the subject and wish to be enlightened. edit: it's also not my first day commenting, I just forgot my old account and had to make a new one a little while ago.

by kgrad 16y ago

pmjordan 16y ago

The player certainly very much isn't open, aside from the Tamarin runtime.

kgrad 16y ago
Can you qualify that statement? edit: You are correct, the player provided by Adobe is not open. However, anyone is free to make their own player, one alternative player is Gnash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash
- pmjordan 16y ago
  I can. "License: Proprietary freeware EULA" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Player http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Player And the argument that anyone is free to re-implement is just as valid for anything. The fact of the matter is that thousands of man-years have gone into building Flash Player, and replicating them is far from a straightforward task. The spec is huge, and there are millions of .swf files to which an alternative implementation needs to be compatible. It's a bit like suggesting someone re-implement Windows if they don't like Microsoft's version of it. It's open, right? Anyone can look up the ABI for user space executables, kernel drivers, etc., so how hard could it be? ReactOS (or Wine) hard, as it turns out. Note also that for the supposedly open components, Adobe controls them so tightly, they are only "look but don't touch" open. Openness is only useful insofar as you can actually do something with the information or code. They maintain this control precisely because they have an iron grip on the player. There is no point for a third party to extend the Flash spec or compiler, because they can't realistically build an implementation that actually runs code obeying the forked spec. It's as ridiculous as creating a driver to run on a hypothetical version of Windows. Yes, you can do it, but it's also completely pointless.
  - kgrad 16y ago
    Thanks for the link, you are certainly correct that adobes player is proprietary, but I provided you with a link to an alternate player... Just because something is hard to reproduce doesn't make it closed. Do you consider java closed because Sun/Oracle makes the best applet viewer? I am not trying to say Adobe is guilt free or anything, but it looks to me like they are making it as open as they can, unless I am missing something.
    - jorgecastillo 16y ago
      Java is licensed under the GPL.
    - pmjordan 16y ago
      No, I consider Java to be open because it is licensed under the GPL, an Open Source/Free Software license. but it looks to me like they are making it as open as they can With all due respect, you're either trolling or extremely ignorant for someone reading HN. In case of the latter, please educate yourself and read up on the difference between proprietary and open source software. Also take note that "freeware" does not fall under the definition of "open" software. FWIW I will flag any further trollish comments.
      - kgrad 16y ago
        I am sorry if you are offended by my ignorance. I am not currently arguing that the flash player provided by adobe is open. I conceded a while ago that the flash player provided by adobe is proprietary. However, an alternate flash player exists and you can program SWF without ever touching an Adobe product. There is a spec and open tools for doing so. I was simply under the impression that Flash was open minus Adobes implementation and am trying to see why everyone is saying it is not. edit: I don't understand why me disagreeing with you automatically makes me a troll. People are quick to jump on people who don't agree with their viewpoints.
- jorgecastillo 16y ago
  Adobe Uses DMCA On Protocol It Promised To Open http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/22/1254246 http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/22/1254246 How do Gnash developers work with the Adobe/Macromedia EULA? http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/25#eula http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/25#eula Read this two links and come back to discuss about flash openness.
  - kgrad 16y ago
    edit: apparently adobe did open the RTMP spec? http://www.adobe.com/devnet/rtmp/ http://www.adobe.com/devnet/rtmp/ How does Gnash being built without Adobe tools do anything but further proving that you don't have to use adobe products to use/work with flash? I am not claiming with authority that Flash is open, I am just trying to see how it is closed. So far it looks open to me. I'm not even a Flash developer, so please forgive me if I am not understanding properly.
    - jorgecastillo 16y ago
      Did you really read the links? I can't do your homework for you. "I'm not even a Flash developer, so please forgive me if I am not understanding properly." Me neither I am just an average guy that likes computers. I am not even a developer of anything. But it is very clear to me that flash is not open and Adobe does not intent for it to be other than for PR. So far I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. If Adobe would open source (GPLv2/BSD/Apache, etc) flash and would give the future development and implementation to an independent party (W3C?) made of various corporations, organizations and individuals that have stakes at flash I'd be all for flash. P.S. I think a BSD/MIT/Apache license would be better.

Terretta 16y ago

Consider the "definition" shared in the letter. Compare that definition to WebKit, then to Flash.

kgrad 16y ago
Which part of the definition does flash violate? Also, Apple doesn't give much credit to KDE with WebKit, they certainly like to imply that they are very open with it without mentioning its origins...
- jorgecastillo 16y ago
  Do you work for Adobe? This is your first day commenting and you seem to defend flash as if your life depended on it.
  - kgrad 16y ago
    I don't work for adobe, nor do I even code in flash. I am just ignorant on the subject and wish to be enlightened. edit: it's also not my first day commenting, I just forgot my old account and had to make a new one a little while ago.