what happened to linuxflashplugin?
oscartheduck at gmail.com
Mon Feb 11 20:41:37 UTC 2008
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
> 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
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.
More information about the freebsd-questions