Adobe Open Sources Flex SDK Under MPL

andy_from_nc writes "Adobe announced that they are open sourcing their Flex SDK under the Mozilla Public License incrementally by December. This move comes on the heels of Microsoft's announcement of their Silverlight and Adobe's CEO's criticism of it. Adobe's action will likely please other open source developers who use Flex, like me, and offers hope that we'll see a full open source version of Flash one day. You can read Adobe's FAQ on the move as well."

Comments

Game UI

[Aladrin]

I've seen some talk lately about using Flash to create GUIs for games and other 3D apps. I would think that open-sourcing Flex would get those same people to think about using it instead. I think this is probably a pretty solid move for Adobe and will drive adoption of Flex quite a bit faster.

The ability to improve it yourself definitely doesn't hurt, either.

Re:Game UI

[Beau6183]

Viewable source is a compilation option in flex applications (example: http://examples.adobe.com/flex2/inproduct/sdk/flex store/flexstore.html right click to view source). The beauty of Flex / flash is that it's contained in it's own "cross platform" VM, making it totally independent of the browser. I would think that any tight integration into any browser would be a poor move for adobe/flex/flash.

Not impressed

[WindBourne]

Adobe is putting small pieces on Linux (and other OSS), just when they feel attacked by MS. If they really wanted to keep doing well, they would move ALL of their work to Linux. Once they do that, they are no longer compete ting directly against MS IN MS's BACKYARD. That is a battle that adobe will lose if they try to take on MS directly.

Re:Not impressed

[visualight]

I think that if they supported their CS suite (even if all they did was a winelib conversion) on Linux, Microsoft would be dead in three years.

I would cheerfully pay Adobe for their userland apps that are supported on Linux, opensource or not.

Re:Not impressed

[stunt_penguin]

If Adobe's software was on Linux I'd definitely get Ubuntu on here and start using it. I'd still have to dual-boot to get to use 3DS MAX (which doesn't run well in Wine when pushed) but I could quite happily do 99% of my multimedia work.

Re:Not impressed

[kripkenstein]

Adobe is putting small pieces on Linux (and other OSS), just when they feel attacked by MS.

Reality isn't headlines on Slashdot (there goes my karma). Yes, we recently had a story about Microsoft's new supposed "Adobe-killer" technology. But it is extremely doubtful that this is related to Adobe's actions as mentioned in the current story. For one, actions such as this are planned far in advance. Also, ActionScript was already in the process of being open-sourced; Adobe simply see OSS as part of their overall strategy. So open-sourcing the Flex SDK is in all likelihood not a knee-jerk reaction to very recent actions of Microsoft.

Re:Not impressed

[visualight]

The weakest link here is my implied assertion that Adobe porting it's flagship product to Linux would be a catalytic event. And I don't think that's such a naive assertion, and, if it were to happen in the near future it would coincide with Microsoft being at what is arguably a weak point in its history.

Also, 3 years is multiple development cycles for many major applications.

You fell for it, huh?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Adobe's action will likely please other open source developers who use Flex, like me, and offers hope that we'll see a full open source version of Flash one day.

There's a sucker born every minute, isn't there.

What Adobe has done by throwing an "open source" SDK bone is made it appear like they're leaning toward open-source Flash without actually giving away any of the crown jewels. Adobe's move is very much like the gigabyes of "open source" code samples Microsoft makes available in its extensive MSDN library: you can use and modify them for free, but you still need Microsoft's core (and proprietary) software to make them work.

Re:You fell for it, huh?

[EricTheGreen]

Well, actually the GP has a point...Adobe isn't open-sourcing any of the server/data access/interop components. So while you might be able to freely assemble a great-looking webpage-embeddable UI, what use will it be without the ability to access/manipulate data stores and services? And if you can't do that...what's the point of using Flex in the first place? Wasn't it targeted at corp developer types? If all you want are pretty apps, wouldn't you be using the web designed-focused Flash tools in the first place?

Sure it's great the SDK code will be freely available and inspectable; I'm all for transparency in software and its licensing. But Adobe has still locked up the middleware and will continue to charge an astronomical amount of money for it. And the tool won't be terribly useful without it, unless you're one of the wildman-types who rolls his own data access remoting. So the GP isn't that far off, at least in my opinion.

What would be helpful for the dev community would be an FOSS interop gateway/platform where the remoting headaches have already been solved. Maybe it exists somewhere; if so, now would be a great publicity opportunity for it.

(And yes, I've done Flex development before, so spare me the snarkiness...)

Re:You fell for it, huh?

[uss_valiant]

I think you underestimate the significance of this announcement. True, Adobe isn't open-sourcing Flash. But open-sourcing the Flex (MXML) compiler and SDK is still very important.

MXML compiles into .swf (which runs in the normal Flash runtime). You won't get open-source Flash runtimes, but the compiled .swf files will be 100% open-source whereas right now, .swf files compiled from MXML still contain statically linked, non-FLOSS components in the same binary as your own (FLOSS) code.

Also, you'll be able to extend MXML since you get the sources and the rights to change the compiler.

I guess I still won't be able to release any MXML+.swf code under the GPL though.

• Right now, I picked the LGPL since our main project (some web application) is licensed under the GPL.
• You can't release any MXML/.swf under the GPL if you depend on any of its built-in features that it needs to compile into the .swf binary.
• Sidenote: If the compiled .swf only includes normal Flash features that are part of the runtime, your .swf/source can still be released under the GPL.

Since there's the incompatibility between the GPL and the MPL, I will still have to use the LGPL for my own MXML code. If the Flex SDK was released under the GPL, this problem would have gone away as well.

Re:You fell for it, huh?

[AKAImBatman]

This *is* slightly better than you make it sound, as Adobe is effectively giving away a free development environment. However, this mostly just replaces the open source stuff like MTASC, so it's like it's earth shattering. But it is a step in the right direction. Especially since having a free SDK could save experienced developers thousands of dollars on purchasing Adobe's cruddy IDEs.

Re:You fell for it, huh?

[uss_valiant]

Adobe isn't open-sourcing any of the server/data access/interop components.

HTTPService is included in the SDK. It's primitive and slower compared to Flash remoting using RemoteObject but it gets you started. That having said, it would be really nice if RemoteObject was included in the SDK since there are already some FLOSS components for the server-side part of the remoting.

Re:You fell for it, huh?

[md17]

RemoteObject is also available with the Open Source Granite Data Services project. So for free you get:
- HTTPService (connect to any backend using any serialization you want)
- WebService (connect to SOAP)
- RemoteObject (Java remoting)

Why do Adobe even care about Silverlight?

[stunt_penguin]

Microsoft's only market for Silverlight is some universities and eLearning facilities that are too short sighted to use Flash for multimedia delivery; the only way MS could possibly even put a dent in Flash's ubiquity is if they traveled back in time and made sure that Silverlight something that was installed on every windows machine from Windows 98 onwards.

Adobe have a massive user base for the Flash plugin (perhaps one of the highest user bases for any software in the world? (barring MS paint).. interesting question) and the application itself, and I don't see Microsoft making a dent in it in any meaningful way- why should Adobe even bother looking over their shoulder when you can ask most users what Flash is and they'll say 'oh it's that thing you need on the interwebs that does ______'.

Anyway, I've been wanting to make the move to Flex (from hand-coding my XML requests etc) and this is a great chance to do so. Spry integration into Dreamweaver CS3, then open-sourcing Flex? Some moves in the right direction, Adobe :)

Now, about that XML into After Effects idea I had :p

*runs off to buy master suite*

Re:Why do Adobe even care about Silverlight?

[btSeaPig]

the only way MS could possibly even put a dent in Flash's ubiquity is if they traveled back in time and made sure that Silverlight something that was installed on every windows machine from Windows 98 onwards

- or release it as a critical update

Re:Why do Adobe even care about Silverlight?

[blueZhift]

I think Adobe cares about Silverlight in part because Flash development is still perceived to have a high barrier to entry because of the cost of Flash MX. I myself only became aware of the possibility of using the free Flex SDK to develop Flash apps recently. So in light of Microsoft's announcement, I think Adobe doesn't want those who might be swayed to forget about Flex. Open sourcing Flex is definitely a good move. It should result in some good free tools for Flash development which should help fend off the threat presented by Silverlight. I'm still planning to take a look at Silverlight, but I'll definitely be giving Flex a look too. And I'm sure that Adobe remembers that Netscape thought they had an insurmountable lead back in the day too, and look where they are now... Never underestimate the power of the dark side!

Flex Builder 2 *DOES* run under Linux

[WarwickRyan]

Flex Builder 2 is provided as an Eclipse plugin, so it's platform independant.

Quick google for "flex under linux" returns a blog detailing support: http://blog.davr.org/2007/04/22/flex-builder-201-u nder-linux/.

Adobe really impress me with Flex..

Re:Flex Builder 2 *DOES* run under Linux

[Beau6183]

Clarification: You can HACK FB2 to run under Linux, but it does not have any native support (no installer, no technical support). We recently had a meeting with the Flex team at my company and their view is that Linux does not represent the majority of their market, and at the time they were here they expressed no immediate interest in moving toward a Linux-supported product. I really wish they'd extend the open-source movement to FB2 as well because quite honestly -- it sucks. It's a severe memory hog, it is lacking several key bits of functionality like automatic code formatting for ActionScript and MXML, no built-in support for refactoring, and is a pain to get working with relatively-pathed library projects.

Re:Flex Builder 2 *DOES* run under Linux

[bcrowell]

..and you can always use your own editor and compile with the free compiler.

1. MTASC doesn't support actionscript 3.
2. Haxe does support actoinscript 3, but it's a different language, so it isn't source code compatible with Adobe's compilers.
3. MP3 is the only audio codec that's supported by flash, and the mpegla licensing terms make it illegal to distribute MP3 decoders in large numbers for free, without paying royalties. (I believe ubuntu, for example, pays royalties for the privilege of distributing it for free.)
4. The Version 2 Components are not freely available. That means that if you're writing a flash app, and want to do it without paying Adobe money, you have to use another gui component library, which won't be source-code compatible with the kind of flash everybody else is writing.
5. The license of the flash spec, http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/fileforma t/license/ , says "3)a. You may not use the Specification in any way to create or develop a runtime, client, player, executable or other program that reads or renders .swf files."

Summary: flash is a disaster if you want to write OSS using an OSS toolchain.

Do you mean OpenLaszlo

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

OpenLaszlo, a opensource toolkit that takes declaritive XML and compiles it to SWF. What it can do for datasets and backend interactivity is just awesome. Recommended cause it's neat plus it's way saner then HTML (imho), as long you're doing applications and not semantic stuff, this is where it's at. mmm. replication managers.

Re:Do you mean OpenLaszlo

[yossie]

Openlaszlo does all this, of course, and much like Flex, OpenLaszlo can output a Web2.0 app as a flash file requiring a flash plugin to run BUT it can ALSO output a dhtml file (which will run in all modern browsers) requiring NO plugin. There is a commitment to output Java ME as well, in the near future. You really have to see OpenLaszlo apps in dhtml to understand how powerful dhtml can be - Google apps are boring and dull in comparison (though astonishingly functional, to be sure..) The fact that the same source will be able to compile into any of these (and more, there is even a proof-of-concept SVG output generator..) is not only unique but opens up choices that none of the other players in this field can.

Re:Flex and db access

[joshv]

This is exactly what my company does. We write custom front ends in flex to visualize data. Flex has extensive support for accessing server side data via various remoting APIs.

An unexpected smart move - Adobe deserves credit

[Qbertino]

This is a suprising move indeed, and changes the game for RIAs big time. As of now Flex is right up there with Laszlo and Co. when technical decision-makers talk about RIA generators and compilers. This dimishes the corporate media hype about Silverthingie from MS to a minor sidenote.

Kudos also to the Laszlo guys and the Motion Twin ActionScript Compiler and all the other projects listed at osflash.org for putting the presure on Adobemedia for the last few years. And Kudos to Sun for leading the way in open sourcing key technologies - I suspect that played a major role in this decision. And thanks to Adobe for scaring the living wee-wee out of Microsoft's Web Division. I can just imagine the look on their faces. Hehe.

Oh, and last but not least, to all the idiots here on slashdot allready ranting about Flash, Flex, Laszlo, RIAs and whatnot: Shut the f*ck up, you don't know squat what you're talking about.

Duh... flex is already open source

[Timbo]

http://flex.sourceforge.net/

Adobe should concentrate on opening sourcing something of worth instead of reinventing the wheel. ;)

Re:Nifty but confusing.

[colanut]

Yes, you can hand write the ActionScrpt/Flex in a text editor and use the free SDK to command line compile the .swf file to be included in your web page. As long as you know the language and syntax.

The $700 package is a ide that has the compiler, debugger and a graphical design window to help you out.

The last mile of software

[rodentia]

There are eight ways to Sunday for solving the last mile problem for software (the presentation tier) in a robust fashion. For all but the most trivial of applications, this solution is more trouble than it's worth. Unlike the last mile of the network, the target is not a fixed location.

The shrewd architect knows that there is always a rewrite. A dependency like this at the presentation layer is a liability. Whether interpreter is proprietary or not has little impact on these costs.

Re:Flex and db access

[peterarm]

Flex can talk to anything on the server side by passing XML over HTTPService -- Java, .NET, Rails, etc. You can also use RemoteObject to talk AMF3 to a server.

Shameless plug: see my signature for my book on the Flex + Rails combination :)

It's no good alone

[jdavidb]

The only way to really utilize open source flex is if we could get an open source bison.