Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Official reasons why Adobe doesn't open-source Flash

blogs.adobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: Official reasons why Adobe doesn't open-source Flash

#31

Post by BearOfNH »

mdasen wrote: post #22

I think Adobe is trying to negate a lot of bad press that they're getting in the techie community. It started with Jobs/Apple saying that they crash a lot and continued with all of our old complaints being dredged up. Adobe claimed that they don't ship Flash Players with any known crashing bugs. They had a great blog post and it made at least me feel that maybe it wasn't their fault. Then the evidence is presented th…

It's very difficult to find developers that have never installed the Adobe software ever

Kids -- by which I mean anybody under 18 -- cannot enter into contracts. An Adobe EULA cannot be enforced against somebody so young. In lawyer-speak the EULA is "voidable" (as opposed to "void").

So all you'd need do is hire 'em young and make sure they don't agree to anything once they turn 18.

IANAL, do this at your own risk, yada-yada-yada.

Re: Official reasons why Adobe doesn't open-source Flash

#32

Post by agazso »

madars wrote: post #15

From Wikipedia: On 20 January 2009 Adobe announced it will publish the RTMP specification. On 21 May 2009 Adobe filed a DMCA removal request on a Sourceforge-hosted implementation of the protocol. And now we are about to believe that: The Flash file format (SWF) specifications are open and unrestricted, so any company - even Apple - can build their own Flash Player if they want. Also freely available are related spec…

While it's true that since then Adobe published the RTMP specification, but they left out the description of the handshake procedure, without it cannot be called full and open.

What's more they are constantly changing the handshake procedure in every point release. I wouldn't call that open either.

Re: Official reasons why Adobe doesn't open-source Flash

#33

Post by [deleted] »

Flow wrote: post #16
madars wrote: post #15

From Wikipedia: On 20 January 2009 Adobe announced it will publish the RTMP specification. On 21 May 2009 Adobe filed a DMCA removal request on a Sourceforge-hosted implementation of the protocol. And now we are about to believe that: The Flash file format (SWF) specifications are open and unrestricted, so any company - even Apple - can build their own Flash Player if they want. Also freely available are related spec…

Post this info in a reply on that blog entry plz. Or maybe you did, but their "Open at Adobe" moderator didn't approve it.:)

[deleted]

Re: Official reasons why Adobe doesn't open-source Flash

#34

Post by pingswept »

Flow wrote: post #16
madars wrote: post #15

From Wikipedia: On 20 January 2009 Adobe announced it will publish the RTMP specification. On 21 May 2009 Adobe filed a DMCA removal request on a Sourceforge-hosted implementation of the protocol. And now we are about to believe that: The Flash file format (SWF) specifications are open and unrestricted, so any company - even Apple - can build their own Flash Player if they want. Also freely available are related spec…

Post this info in a reply on that blog entry plz. Or maybe you did, but their "Open at Adobe" moderator didn't approve it.:)

I've just submitted this comment (we'll see if it gets posted):

--

Hello Mr. McAllister,

I'm glad to hear that Adobe has opened as much as they have. That's the right direction; I'm glad you're doing it.

I'm a little concerned about your claim that anyone can implement SWF, RTMP, and so forth. Didn't Adobe issue a DMCA takedown when someone implemented RTMP?

Here's a copy of what appears to be the takedown notice: http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/notice.cgi?...

I recognize that that the takedown notice says it was issued because the implementation "can be used to download copyrighted works," not because it's an implementation of RTMP. That's a silly argument-- every web browser that uses a Flash player downloads content before it plays it. How could one implement RTMP, the "Real-Time Messaging Protocol" without sending any messages?

I'm willing to believe that there might be some misunderstanding here-- maybe there are two parts to the RTMP spec, and only one is open, or something like that. But at the outset, I can't reconcile what you've written with the rest of the evidence that I see.

Perhaps you could explain what I'm missing?

Re: Official reasons why Adobe doesn't open-source Flash

#35

Post by swombat »

pingswept wrote: post #34
Flow wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post this info in a reply on that blog entry plz. Or maybe you did, but their "Open at Adobe" moderator didn't approve it.:)

I've just submitted this comment (we'll see if it gets posted): -- Hello Mr. McAllister, I'm glad to hear that Adobe has opened as much as they have. That's the right direction; I'm glad you're doing it. I'm a little concerned about your claim that anyone can implement SWF, RTMP, and so forth. Didn't Adobe issue a DMCA takedown when someone implemented RTMP? Here's a copy of what appears to be the takedown notice: ht…

Utterly uber-lame that no comments get posted on an article about how Adobe is being open.

Open my arse.

Re: Official reasons why Adobe doesn't open-source Flash

#36

Post by swombat »

swombat wrote: post #8
pavs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you _mean_ by "resolving"? You want adobe to buy H.264 and give it away for free? That's pretty much impossible. You can't just throw around the word "resolve" things without understanding the complexity or nature of the possible solutions.

I mean "do 'stuff' that makes the problem 'go away'". As a former management consultant, and now a start-up founder, believe me, I speak from experience when I say every problem of this kind is solvable if you want to do it badly enough.

What's with the group downvotes, folks?

I stopped responding to this guy because his points are worthless. I'd rather the space on this page was used up by intelligent discussion rather than needless debate over a concept that is obvious to anyone who actually does any kind of ambiguous, difficult work (e.g. running a start-up, being a consultant, and generally being anything more than an employee who takes orders).

Please don't force me to waste space and energy arguing this stupid point.

Re: Official reasons why Adobe doesn't open-source Flash

#37

Post by swombat »

pavs wrote: post #11
swombat wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean "do 'stuff' that makes the problem 'go away'". As a former management consultant, and now a start-up founder, believe me, I speak from experience when I say every problem of this kind is solvable if you want to do it badly enough.

There is only "one stuff" they can do to make the problem go away (in your words "resolving licensing issues"), which is, they can buy H.264 and give it away for free (open source it), which is impossible without making themselves bankrupt. The other stuff that I can think of is that they can use Ogg Theora, which is hardly a solution, considering (IMO) it is an inferior codec.

"There is only one way to do X" = the way narrow-minded, uncreative people see the world.

Re: Official reasons why Adobe doesn't open-source Flash

#40

Post by kd5bjo »

madars wrote: post #15

From Wikipedia: On 20 January 2009 Adobe announced it will publish the RTMP specification. On 21 May 2009 Adobe filed a DMCA removal request on a Sourceforge-hosted implementation of the protocol. And now we are about to believe that: The Flash file format (SWF) specifications are open and unrestricted, so any company - even Apple - can build their own Flash Player if they want. Also freely available are related spec…

Most people that are using RTMP are using it to serve static files that they want to make harder to copy than downloading an FLV file.

As I recall, the problem with rtmpdump wasn't that it implemented RTMP, but that it included ways to bypass the "security measures" that are built-in to RTMP. It was able to spoof all of the parameters that FMS uses to determine whether or not it should serve a stream, and would save a copy of the video to disk instead of just displaying it to the user.

Post reply on HN