Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)
On 2010-03-17 21:03, Neal Hogan wrote:
[snip]
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.
The Adobe Flash *Player* is free as in Beer, not free as in Speech.
The Flash *specification* is *published* under a license that allows
anyone to create their own Flash writer and player.
Again, in the end, if you want flash support (no matter what), cool.
But can a "purist" accept such support
Sure, since Flash is a publish specification, and there's a GPL player.
and be a true linux user?
That's a meaningless phrase, and so the question can't be answered.
--
Obsession with "preserving cultural heritage" is a racist impediment
to moral, physical and intellectual progress.
Reply to: