3 ms·

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 somethin

by 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.