Flash instructions updated

[TK009]

Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 08:07 -0600, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 20:12 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:09:18AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 13:25 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Based on the recent conversations on this list, I have updated:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flash
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> As the page is generically named, and Fedora is a project with a strong
>>>> emphasis on F/OSS, I would suggest the page should more prominently
>>>> discuss and advocate F/OSS alternatives (gnash and swfdec) and position
>>>> the Adobe plugin as a fallback for cases where those solutions are not
>>>> sufficient. Also, it should refer more specifically to the Adobe plugin
>>>> when saying things like "Flash is Non-Free Software". WDYT?
>>>>         
>>> I added a top-side admonition, taking the text directly from our
>>> existing [[ForbiddenItems]] page.  We should maintain equivalency
>>> between those pages.  (I would have liked to transclude just that
>>> section, but didn't know how.)
>>>
>>> Because, at least, (1) the use of Adobe's plugin is not illegal
>>> anywhere to our knowledge, and (2) the use of Adobe's software
>>> repository does not, as far as we know, present problems of potential
>>> contributory infringement, this page is permissible.  I agree we need
>>> an admonition to clarify this is an *alternative* to FOSS, not a
>>> method of first resort for people who care about software freedom.
>>>       
>> I think the page now looks great and appropriately commented.
>>
>> I would, however, challenge you in your statement / implication that
>> people who would use a proprietary plugin like Adobe Flash on Fedora -
>> even as a first resort - somehow do not care about software freedom.
>> That's a very strong and IMO misguided statement to make ideologically
>> about some very active members of the Fedora community, including me.
>>
>> I would submit that the vast majority of people using Fedora today DO
>> care about software freedom and would prefer to see something like
>> Adobe's plugin released under a GPL (or like) license. But they also
>> still need to get work done right now. And unless / until Adobe licenses
>> their code, or gnash and swfdec mature to the point they are reasonable
>> substitutes for most use cases (it could happen), the non-Free Adobe
>> plugin and its current licensing terms are a practical compromise.
>>
>> I really hope you didn't mean what you wrote in the context in which it
>> appears.
>>     
>
> I think you inferred something I didn't mean.  I wrote that Adobe Flash
> was "not a method of *first resort* for people who care about software
> freedom." (emphasis added)
>
> >From what you said above, I gather that Adobe Flash was not a method of
> first resort for you.  You tried gnash and swfdec, and found that they
> were not yet at the level of capability needed to support your work.
> Only then did you resort to Adobe Flash.  And that's precisely the case
> I thought I was making.  I have no doubt about your commitment to
> software freedom! :-)
>
> I am in the exact same boat.  I need Flash frequently to view
> proceedings from conferences and on other sites where I track
> information about Fedora.  I try swfdec and gnash regularly to see how
> they're working, and if I can get reasonably close to information that
> would help the projects, I file bugs.  And then I resort to Adobe Flash
> after that.
>
> There are probably people using Fedora who don't care as much about
> software freedom, and just want a working Adobe Flash.  For them, it may
> be a matter of first resort, and so that admonition hopefully tells them
> there are alternatives that may work for them, depending on the
> Flash-based sites they frequent.
>
> Is there a better way I could put this so it's not misunderstood?
>
>   
Being first and foremost a marketing guy, no I do not believe you could 
have put it any better.
There is also freedom of choice. Those that would use adobe as the a 
first choice are not freedom haters.
You never used those words but your tone suggested it to me. It was a 
slight and I read it as such.

Edward (TK009)