Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Andrew Reid <reidac@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 March 2010 20:15:51 Neal Hogan wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> > Enough DDs are sufficiently practical for there to be a non-free tree,
>> > and Christian Marillat does yeoman's work with
>> > http://www.debian-multimedia.org/.
>>
>> <no flames intended>
>>
>> Ok . . . that's fine, but I'm still curious about the number of
>> debian-user@ folks who appreciate or abide by or whatever the
>> "Stallman-point-o-view."
>>
>> P.S. -- . . . and if I'm lucky, why Stallman might not be relevant to
>> the linux project.
>
> The Stallman-purist position actually has a significant
> practical upside -- it's impossible to pirate free-as-in-freedom
> software, which means an admin can give users a free hand on the
> systems they work with, and there is almost no danger of my employer
> being embarassed by some kind of license violation if they talk
> about it on their blog or redistribute it or something.
Most (if not all) software has some sort of license, like "use as
you'd like but make sure you tell the next person the same" (BSD . .
.as I understand it). However, Flash is not just a set of words . . .
to use Adobe software without paying for it is stealing . . . money .
. . no?
Is it the case that the flash support offered by Debian is "free"
(i.e., without charge) in the Stallman sense? It would seem not?
Enlighten me, please.
Again, in the end, if you want flash support (no matter what), cool.
But can a "purist" accept such support and be a true linux user?
-Neal
Reply to: