Flash instructions updated

[David Nalley]

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM, TK009 <john.brown009 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)

It's not a slight - just the way things are. People who care about
software freedom don't willingly choose to perpetuate non-free
software. ie, people who care about software freedom use ogg instead
of mp3, use free video drivers, instead of proprietary blobs.
It's a akin to the difference between a vegetarian and omnivore. If
you are a vegetarian you don't willingly eat meat. There is no slight
intended or inferred, but you can't be a vegetarian and eat prime rib,
you are an omnivore (or perhaps carnivore, but it's unlikely that you
only consume meat). Those terms aren't slights, it's just the way
things are. Admittedly we don't have nice labels to attach to 'people
who care about free software' and 'people who don't care about free
software'; but the situation is analogous.