3 ms·
On page two, "Consistency Counts", the argument isn't right. "Openness" is sadly very ambiguous, but as noted earlier in the article, there's a difference betwe
by antimatter15 16y ago
On page two, "Consistency Counts", the argument isn't right. "Openness" is sadly very ambiguous, but as noted earlier in the article, there's a difference between being developed openly and having patent encumbered royalties. Flash is actually an open specification, and anyone is free to develop tools that create flash content (distributed as source or binary) without paying royalties to Adobe in any part of the world. Anyone can create a flash player too without paying royalties.
VP8 and Flash are not open standards, but they are royalty free. AVC was openly developed and is an ISO standard but is not royalty free.
- Locke1689 16y agoFlash isn't an open standard anymore. As of Flash 9 when they started shipping the DRM subsystem, free software cannot be fully compatible without rev eng.
- knowtheory 16y agoWhich is only a capability relevant when interacting with Adobe's flash media server. There are several alternatives media servers available, most of which are open source. The problem of FMS parity is a wholly different ball of wax, aside from (although perhaps relevant to) the behavior of the Flash VM itself.
- Locke1689 16y agoWhat the hell? Who cares? The effect is that I can't and never will be able to watch Hulu in an open Flash implementation.