Live data from Hacker News

Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

blogs.fsfe.org

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#71
post #60

Could someone please explain to me how Flash isn't open? To my knowledge, everything about flash is open other than Adobe's IDE. The spec has been released, the sdk is OSS and anyone is free to compile to SWF... Am I mistaken here?

Consider the "definition" shared in the letter. Compare that definition to WebKit, then to Flash.

Which part of the definition does flash violate? Also, Apple doesn't give much credit to KDE with WebKit, they certainly like to imply that they are very open with it without mentioning its origins...

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#72
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The player certainly very much isn't open, aside from the Tamarin runtime.

Can you qualify that statement? edit: You are correct, the player provided by Adobe is not open. However, anyone is free to make their own player, one alternative player is Gnash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash

I can. "License: Proprietary freeware EULA" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Player

And the argument that anyone is free to re-implement is just as valid for anything. The fact of the matter is that thousands of man-years have gone into building Flash Player, and replicating them is far from a straightforward task. The spec is huge, and there are millions of .swf files to which an alternative implementation needs to be compatible. It's a bit like suggesting someone re-implement Windows if they don't like Microsoft's version of it. It's open, right? Anyone can look up the ABI for user space executables, kernel drivers, etc., so how hard could it be? ReactOS (or Wine) hard, as it turns out.

Note also that for the supposedly open components, Adobe controls them so tightly, they are only "look but don't touch" open. Openness is only useful insofar as you can actually do something with the information or code. They maintain this control precisely because they have an iron grip on the player. There is no point for a third party to extend the Flash spec or compiler, because they can't realistically build an implementation that actually runs code obeying the forked spec. It's as ridiculous as creating a driver to run on a hypothetical version of Windows. Yes, you can do it, but it's also completely pointless.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#73
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you qualify that statement? edit: You are correct, the player provided by Adobe is not open. However, anyone is free to make their own player, one alternative player is Gnash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash

I can. "License: Proprietary freeware EULA" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Player And the argument that anyone is free to re-implement is just as valid for anything. The fact of the matter is that thousands of man-years have gone into building Flash Player, and replicating them is far from a straightforward task. The spec is huge, and there are millions of .swf files to which an alternative implementation need…

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.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#74
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MPEG-4 Systems is not offered any more (since it's effectively dead).

"Systems" is mp4 container. Did you mean MPEG-4 Part 2 (Advanced Simple Profile)?

The things which are patented generally apply to parts of the spec that have never been deployed.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#75
post #56
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For what it's worth, there are hundreds of patents in the total MPEG-LA pool. Furthermore, it's not clear what Apple would stand to gain by enforcing its two patents that may or may not be relevant to Theora. Maybe I'm wrong, but media patent enforcement doesn't seem to be one of Apple's core businesses (HTC lawsuit notwithstanding). There are plenty of other companies, though, that likely have a vested interest in…

Apple stands to gain more than just licensing fees by threatening any non-H.264 codec. As Steve Jobs points out in his "Thoughts on Flash", Apple has millions of devices in the wild whose hardware is optimized exclusively for H.264. If any other video format gains dominance, the devices will not work nearly as well (cutting the battery life by half just to play an older codec, in his example).

It's a good point that Apple's mobile devices are invested in H.264, but do you really think that -- were Theora successful and safe from litigation -- Apple wouldn't put a hypothetical Theora decoder in the iPhone? It doesn't seem rational to me to oppose Theora just because current hardware doesn't support it. Consider, for example, how Apple has largely left FireWire (its own technology) behind in favor of USB. Apple is a very "out with the old" company.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#76
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The player certainly very much isn't open, aside from the Tamarin runtime.

Can you qualify that statement? edit: You are correct, the player provided by Adobe is not open. However, anyone is free to make their own player, one alternative player is Gnash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash

Adobe Uses DMCA On Protocol It Promised To Open http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/22/1254246

How do Gnash developers work with the Adobe/Macromedia EULA? http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/25#eula

Read this two links and come back to discuss about flash openness.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#77
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can. "License: Proprietary freeware EULA" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Player And the argument that anyone is free to re-implement is just as valid for anything. The fact of the matter is that thousands of man-years have gone into building Flash Player, and replicating them is far from a straightforward task. The spec is huge, and there are millions of .swf files to which an alternative implementation need…

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 miss…

Java is licensed under the GPL.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#78
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can. "License: Proprietary freeware EULA" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Player And the argument that anyone is free to re-implement is just as valid for anything. The fact of the matter is that thousands of man-years have gone into building Flash Player, and replicating them is far from a straightforward task. The spec is huge, and there are millions of .swf files to which an alternative implementation need…

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 miss…

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.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#79
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the "definition" shared in the letter. Compare that definition to WebKit, then to Flash.

Which part of the definition does flash violate? Also, Apple doesn't give much credit to KDE with WebKit, they certainly like to imply that they are very open with it without mentioning its origins...

Do you work for Adobe? This is your first day commenting and you seem to defend flash as if your life depended on it.

Re: Open Letter to Steve Jobs (and a reply)

#80
I really wish people would stop redefining the word "open" to mean whatever makes them feel good. (Vain hope.) Patents are totally orthogonal to copyrights and standards. You can put the source under whatever terms you want, and get whatever international standards body you want to bless the protocol, and that has nothing whatever to do with the patent troll who will show up the next day and start charging license fees.
Post reply on HN