The Return of GPLFlash

ValourX writes "Remember GPLFlash, the free software project that was supposed to replace the proprietary Macromedia Flash plugin? Well it's back in active development according to this NewsForge article. GPLFlash is half of the proprietary duo that the Free Software Foundation is rallying to replace with free equivalents. The alpha release isn't far away, but the development team could use some programming help, if you're available."

Comments

Elaborate

[Quasar1999]

What kind of help? And more importantly, how are they making something compatable? Reverse engineering? I wouldn't want to be in the USA helping this effort... the DMCA could very well be used by macromedia to contain any third party renderers that may appear. They have a ton of money on the line...

Re:Elaborate

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, like, RTFA and stuff?

"So when can we expect a usable release of GPLFlash2? "To make an alpha release," Choquet said, "we need to improve the following things:

* Improve external resources support, so the player may redirect to a location or use external data
* Implement keyboard inputs
* Fix button problems
* Have an ActionScript engine that works. ActionScript libraries may not be completed, but the engine should work.
* Make the plugin more robust, especially concerning fonts and memory allocation
* Fix the configure file and the makefile so everything will get installed properly on different GNU/Linux distros"

A usable Flash player should be available soon. "Given the amount of work, I don't expect any kind of preliminary release before the end of June or July. If we don't do that before we make an alpha release, people will be disappointed as they will not see any benefits compared to GPLFlash."

Groth added that more development help will produce a complete, free Flash player and plugin in a shorter amount of time. Interested developers can contact Groth and Choquet through the GPLFlash mailing list."

Re:Elaborate

[IBeatUpNerds]

They have a ton of money on the line...

Yeah, definitely. At $0.00 per download for their flash plugin, a hit like this is really going to make them ache.

Re:Elaborate

[pete-classic]

They lose money on every download, but they make up for it in the volume.

-Peter

Re:Elaborate

[Wm_K]

http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/open/lice nsing/fileformat/license2.html You are indeed right...the license states

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a nonexclusive license to use the Specification for the sole purposes of developing Products that output SWF

Developing a SWF player would probably mean breaking the license agreement. I don't think it means breaking the DMCA.

Re:Elaborate

[BeBoxer]

Actually if you read the agreements through which that documentation is avaliable, you'll notice that they are provided with the intent of allowing you to create SWF, not play it.

That point is in the article as well. But I have to admit, it makes no sense at all to me. As I understand it, Macromedia sells the Flash creation software. And they are perfectly OK with you using their specs to develop free competition for that product. And they give away the player, but if you develop a free competitor to that, they'll get pissed. WTF? That makes no sense at all to me. Can anybody think of a reason why they would structure the agreement that way?

Re:Elaborate

[soulhuntre]

"Why should Macromedia care that someone is using a 3rd party renderer as a replacement to their free renderer"

Compatability.

One reason Flash is so popular is that for complex interactions it is much, much easier to be sure your Flash app will "just work" across any OS with a MM flash player, regardless of browser.

If a number of players hit there will inevitably be bugs and flaws, meanign that now you cannot be sure your Flash app will behave the way it is supposed to. The usefulness of the format will drop.

And people don't usually know WHY there is a problem .. the will jsut start saying "Flash? It doesn't always work" not caring that its their "player" made of string and bubble gum that is the problem.

The thing is, the Flahs player is FREE. So the only reason to write this one is political, not technical.

Re:Elaborate

[Chyeld]

Players control how flash is seen, not the creators.

Allowing alternative players (assuming they actually have a problem with it and it's not just a CYA laywer insert) means that you can no longer 'promise' objects created in Flash will appear the same everywhere.

Remove that promise, and the draw to use Flash, as opposed to any of the other alternatives out there, is less.

Plus, if the alternative is better than the official version then Macromedia loses control of the language if people should choose to 'embrace and extend' the protocol. Then Macromedia is forced to play catch-up.

Think what MS would do if they were free to release their own Flash player.

Re:Elaborate

[ValourX]

The thing is, the Flahs player is FREE. So the only reason to write this one is political, not technical

That's where you're wrong. If you have a 64-bit system, you can't use Flash. Well, maybe if you have 32-bit x86 binary compatibilit you can use it... if you have a 32-bit binary browser. You cannot use 32-bit libraries and plugins with a 64-bit application. So if your uname says AMD64, PPC, SPARC, Alpha, or MIPS, the smug reply from Macromedia is "sorry 'bout your bad luck! Use Windows, buy an x86 machine!"

There are a lot of people who find this unacceptable. Therefore we have GPLFlash.

-Jem

Re:Elaborate

[VAXGeek]

I would hate to cause a rupture in your reality distortion field, but I would say it is an extremely safe bet that more than 60% of /. users are (gasp!) using MSIE on Win32.

Re:Elaborate

[Cwaig]

That's rubbish. Flash isn't an "open to interpretation" type of standard like HTML. It's all laid out on a fixed coordinate system. If you get an instruction that says "draw a 100x100 square at location 50 using the RGB colour FF:00:00" there's not that many ways to misinterpret it. It's all mathematical, and it you follow the ruleset (which is a hell of a lot simpler than the ones for HTML), you get the same result as Macromedia when rendering it.

Re:Elaborate

[True Grit]

You have to have all or nothing. I.e. you cannot have 32 bit code with 64 bit code. That is an Intel problem not a 64 bit problem.

Actually this isn't true. The X86 64bit CPU's have no problem running 32bit software while in 64bit mode, and the Linux kernel doesn't have a problem with this either, if you compile the kernel for 32bit support. You can easily run any 32bit software in 64bit mode right now, if the software is statically linked and thus has no need for run-time linkage. That is true because the problem is with the rest of the system, particularly the system linker that doesn't support the idea of multiple libraries (same version and name, just different bitness). So this problem is really with the system software (Linux/GNU), not the hardware. In time (not soon alas) this will be fixed with a new standard for Linux's file-system layout and system linker behavior (Debian has a proposal which would implement this called "bi-arch" - since it really is kind of like using 2 architectures at the same time).

So Flash is good now?

[Timesprout]

Is it ?? Is it?? Tell me, I dont know what to think now after all the anti flash vitriol.

Re:So Flash is good now?

[823723423]

Why flash? especially when SVG and Firefox are starting to happen. Browser can do rich graphics without losing rich content. See Picture of browser rotated 30 degress And then there is ben goodgers demo of thumbnail history . See Thumbnail history Plus there's was that article a while back about Oconner commenting on the absent developers. For flash, like advertisement, if we do not notice it, maybe it will go away.

Re:Link to its homepage!

[Enigma_Man]

Worst... Logo... Ever.

-Jeff Albertson

Free flash?

[whiteranger99x]

All I can say is as long as I can smack the monkey for a free iPod or PSP, I'm give it a try! :D

Re:Free flash?

[un1xl0ser]

You need Flash to smack the monkey?

WOW, I thought I had a computer fetish.

Re:Free flash?

[whiteranger99x]

LOL, that was a cheap shot, you bastard! :P

Re:Free flash?

[ArsonSmith]

I got flashed in the park. Last thing I wanted to do after that was smack the monkey.

Problem.

[Sheepdot]

The alpha release isn't far away, but the development team could use some programming help, if you're available.

I would think that they are having problems getting programming support mainly because there are not enough people that see the flash engine as such a travesty to be closed source when it is given out for free, anyway. Same goes for Java.

The only problem with replacing free beer with free speech is that if you have the beer, you're more likely to slur the speech or forget about it altogether.

There is not enough incentive for this project to flourish.

Re:Problem.

[MoonFog]

To further your point, wouldn't it be better to endorse the use of SVG instead?

Re:Problem.

[MenTaLguY]

The SVG specification does include animation actually, and at least Opera and the Adobe SVG plugin do implement it.

Just isn't much out there in the way of authoring tools that support SVG animation yet.

Cool

[ortcutt]

Linux on PPC users don't expect a flash player from Macromedia anytime soon, so continued GPLflash development is good for us.

Re:Link to its homepage!

[Enigma_Man]

am I kidding? Have you seen it? It's awful, straight out of 1991, it would fit just perfect next to a couple of animated gifs of "under construction" and "send me e-mail" that folds up into an envelope and flies away. I mean, I don't usually criticize people contributing free stuff, but damn. I could've peed something in the snow better than that.

-Jesse

Re:Gentlemen

[rainman_bc]

Java uses a virtual machine that runs at the speed of my old Pentium 2.

Blah blah that's grown very tiresome. Newer AWT and Swing applications run quite nicely thinks. I use Zend PHP studio and it feels as good as a good as any win32 or gtk app. The theme engine might not translate over from Gnome to Java, but that's not the end of the world.

Another thing, Java and Flash are interpreted languages

AFAIK you've been able to compile Java for a long time now IIRC. Isn't that what gcc-java is for?

You had me until that point. Comparing Java to Flash is like comparing c to animated gif. Different tools for different problems.

As long as it supports Right Click - QUIT

[MrByte420]

I'll support it!

what about swfdec?

[dominator]

I wonder what their motivations are for working on this instead of helping out the gstreamer guys on swfdec. swfdec is licensed under the GPL and largely already works, including its Mozilla plugin. Even on non-x86 platforms.

http://www.schleef.org/swfdec/

prefer SVG

[cahiha]

I still think Flash is a bad idea. FOSS developers should concentrate on making SVG happen.

In fact, the big thing about Flash isn't the format, it's the authoring tools. A Macromedia-like authoring tool for SVG would be a much better investment of time than creating a Flash player.

Re:Link to its homepage!

[Excelsior]

Insightfull My ass , that is just trolling.

-1 Trolling while talking about Trolling.

Would you care to mention why it is the worst logo ever.

-1 Dead f'ing obvious

I assure you i have seen worse in my time.

-1 Criticizing for ambiguity, then being totally f'ing ambiguous.

So either help him make it better by pointing out what he did wrong or shut up.

Make that better? +7 Funny

Cairo

[labratuk]

I wonder if they'll make use of cairo this time.

Re:GPL Flash...

[darkgumby]

http://openlaszlo.org/

For shame.

[Rei]

Don't be so hard on the person who created the logo, after he selflessly spent three precious minutes of his life working on it.

They could...

[haeger]

...have used this logo which imho would have been MUCH worse.

.haeger

Re:Link to its homepage!

[emurphy42]

Unlike the other folks who are too busy gagging on their own small intestines atm, I have some specific recommendations to offer:

• More contrast between text color and background color
• Put "GPL" in a different font and/or color than "Flash", and/or tilt it 30 degrees to the left
• Offer a few more sizes

Re:Link to its homepage!

[wfberg]

Let's see,
- the colors do not contrast
- the colors aren't strong colors, like primary or tertiary colors, not do they evoke warmth (purples, reds) or a feeling of modernity (greys, blues, metal), rather they remind us of biological substances we'd rather avoid (urine, vomit)
- colors that don't translate well to black/white, spot color or halftone
- busy background
- illegible font (also, not hinted, the letters aren't just anti-aliassed, it's as if they've been painted with water based paint on blotter paper. smudgy.)
- unnecessary change of color for the lines
- the lines themselves add nothing to the logo (especially with the busy background)
- as an aside; the logo is actually more legible if you run it through a color-blindness simulator, which suggests the designer might be colorblind
- tiny
- not a scalable vector (it's a logo for a flash clone!!! well, like, duh!)
- the name gplflash itself isn't ideal; only geeks have any notion of what the GPL is, other people won't remember the name. FreeFlash would be better, though a tonguetwister (say it out loud 10 times).
- no personality. It's just a wacky font, 2 lines and a busy background. I bet the font wasn't designed by the logo 'designer' either.

Take a look at some BigAssCompany's websites.. IBM, Microsoft, BMW, McDonalds, Motorola, Exxon, etc. etc. Notice how their logos are legible? Don't have icky colors? Don't have busy backgrounds? Are vector-scaleable? Also work in monochrome?

Ok, Oracle uses a wacky font, I'll give you that. But at least they use a primary color. It burns away your eyes, but at least it stands out.

Now, there might be worse logos. I can think of one just like that.. "Goatse Retirement Homes".

But it's still a pretty darn bad logo. If you'd
hand it in a class, you should get 0%.

Hooray!

[Greyfox]

More libraries for me to not install on my computer. I haven't even installed the flash libraries. I don't like animation on my web pages. I've disabled animated GIFs and Javascript in about:config and it makes the web a WHOLE lot less obnoxous to browse around. Sure every once in a while I run across a flash-only website, and I just don't browse those.

Of course, if you must have it, there's a happy little firefox plugin that only plays the flash when you click on the image.

Remember

[commodoresloat]

Remember GPLFlash, the free software project that was supposed to replace the proprietary Macromedia Flash plugin?

No.

NOT free

[Luke-Jr]

The thing is, it's NOT free. Merely free of charge, which is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much something costs if it denying your natural rights to modify and share it.

Also, tell me how you expect anyone on non-x86 platforms to view Flash right now? You can't (with the one exception of Mac OS). Hardly cross-platform.

Besides, isn't there an animated SVG format that does what Flash does better? After all, Flash is merely an animation format. Abuse of Flash (such as interactive websites) are just that-- abuse. Any website requiring Flash should be ignored and its contents considered useless.

Value software freedom in its own right.

[jbn-o]

Even if Macromedia had distributed something for users on a variety of OSes (not just GNU/Linux systems) on non-Intel-like hardware (such as Mac PPC), this would be a great development for everyone because it gives us something Macromedia isn't giving us: software freedom. The freedom to share and modify should be valued in its own right, not just because it is less expensive or can be recompiled for less popular combinations of hardware and operating system.

Re:The difference

[nacturation]

If he had only just said "That sucks", I wouldn't have said anything. But he claimed to be able to do it better. So if he's going to make a claim, he should shit or get off the pot.

Obviously, he's waiting for it to snow.