what happened to linuxflashplugin?

[James]

Chuck Robey wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>   
>>>> YouTube? Isn't the right spelling YouPorn?
>>>>         
>>> No, it isn't. If you find nothing worth watching on *You*Tube, it
>>> doesn't mean that others can't find interesting things. For example, I
>>> find there a lot of good and difficult-to-find material from some fields
>>> of art.
>>>       
>> get this interestinf stuff down to your disk with youtube-dl, then watch
>> with mplayer.
>>
>> at least you will have it on your disk, not download each time as
>> youtube does everything to prevent caching the stuff.
>> as it's exactly agains efficiency, they have a reason to do this.
>>
>> any explanations why? i think because then they are able to keep
>> "control" on the stuff, being able to remove anything at will, with no
>> copy on users computers.
>>     
>
> All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully?  I don't
> know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in
> one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who
> browses without a flashplayer knows.
>
> I dunno which license folks have been reading,  This thread has gone on so
> long, I can't keep track anymore, but I do know that the link I saw from
> Adobe's site, referring to Flashplayer, doesn't mention (at all, even in
> passing) either Linux OR FreeBSD.  They do ask you know to modify it
> (decompile, whatever) but there is an explicit loophole left, in order for
> folks to be able to adapt it to run on their platform.
>
> As far as the complaint about distributing it, we have LOTS of software in
> the same category, which seems to be possible for us to deal with, such as,
> well, anyone ever heard of Sun's Java?  If we can do Java, we can do the
> flashplugin just the same.
>
> Someone has their dander up over licensing agreements (that's possible, I
> get that way) and are purposely interpreting the license as evilly as they
> can, but they are the one's who are preventing it from working on FreeBSD,
> not Adobe.  Yes, those licenses are a poor joke, but if you ask me, so is
> Linux's.
>
> Jeeze, can't you find something more important to get upset about, like the
> high price of beer?
>   
I'm with you there. Of course, getting a decent beer in the US is a 
chore, too.

I can't actually see the issue; the makefiles grab the files from 
wherever they're told to. If the only place listed to wget the 
flashplugin file from is adobe's site, then FreeBSD isn't a 
redistributor and we're within the terms of the license.

James