If you really want to use PDF for work, you will use open sourceware rsther than Adobe. They think they are heros for giving away "players" . I ask for a compact, cost effective PDF creation package with features!. Lilke Microsorft, they think they are doing us a favor instead of increasing the knowledge base with innovations and opening up the codes for outside development.

The FFMPEG project implements patent-encumbered codecs, so your point is moot. Just because there is an open-source implementation of a codec, does not mean it is legal to use it.

"Everyone loves open source - well, everyone apart from Microsoft, that is. The only problem with open source is deciding how much code control you're willing to relinquish, especially when open source puts your precious bits and bytes - and ultimately your own product plans - into the hands of your competitors."

That would be one of those WOW POwwwoW Lead Decisions, Mr Anderson?

And AIdDevil of an Odd Job in HyperMania...... for White Knight Bright Light PsychoSIS ...... Permitting and Heralding a MetaPhysical Paradigm Control Shift in Temporal Power Matters.

And is not this stumbling block ..." McAllister noted the SWF format for compiled Flash content is an open specification and that the Flex Software Development Kit (SDK) for building Flash content is open source, but said there is little prospect of open sourcing the player itself." .......not needed, when IT's Driver Source Coding is Shared?

Revealing thus much more whilst also Adding Further Layers and Virtual Fields of Defensive dDepth to Quantum Core Source Sorcery. Binary Wizardy ...... and QuITe Majestic Magister MaJIC too.

And thus do Global Operating Devices Create an Opportune Dilemma for Seasoned Jumpers and Quantum Leapers with ITs AI XXXX Roads in the Root and Router Roadmaps.

Which would quite Logically Transmit and Transfer through to BT in this particular Case in the Public ISP Domain.

As you can read, there is Much Ado about Everything Presently. :-)

The SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format is actually the real answer. The real shame about Adobe buying Macromedia was that it has no incentive to push SVG as the open standards alternative anymore.

Adobe would be much wiser in the long run to allow native SVG exporting from Flash itself. Actionscript is based on ECMA so there really isn't much excuse for it not to be relatively trivial.

No-one pays for the player, so it's not like it's a revenue stream anyway - it's the Flash authoring environment where the real value of Flash lies.

This comments page shows exactly why the flash player is ubiquitous and the other solutions are not.

I can count 4 different "solutions" to the problem. All of which using a different "standard" way of doing things. All of which creating even more fragmentation in areas where fragmentation is not desirable.

is that you don't have a control from A to Z. You have to target some browers and sometimes even an OS. Not sure that a Flash/Flex app behaves in the same way on a Mac and a Windows.

The fragmentation arranges nothing, but in the first place you don't control the client and that's the problem.

Adobe is giving for free the development side, that's very appealing but you're still dependant to his player plus how is it handled by the various browsers.

If you want to cope with AJAX, you just have to take in account the browsers and the OS

So, what do you choose ?

Google hasn't opened sourced their search code because it contains trade secrets. If they want Adobe to open source their flash code, let them first open source all of their server code and share it with the world. Seems fair.

Is Adobe's value added going to be that they run a tollbooth for content delivery or that they deliver the best tools for content creation?

One route sustains the company until somebody finds a way around their logjam and the other builds up a community around the company.

Value Subtraction Companies are doomed.

Anyone else finding the hilarious joke that is amanfrommars not quite so hilarious any more ...?

Patents on software (or maths) is not universal. Ergo there being patents does not make open sourcing flash a patent problem. It may in some jurisdictions but not all. Do what FFMPEG et al do: let the end user download as per allowance of law the codecs separately. Private use of a patent is allowed in the US.

And how do Adobe do the free player in any case? They can't control sales (unless flash has spyware in it) and so cannot remit payment according to license use. If Adobe is already paying for everyone to use that codec then Adobe can keep paying (they have no loss in revenue because they already pay) and the patents become moot even in a paid-for distribution in the US.

I think its a personal freedom to allow idiots to express in megabytes what can be written in ten words.* However dont waste my time, cpu and network with it.

Thank the coding gods for firefox flashblocker.

*ignoring the exta effor to make it accessible and then convert it to other languages....

and google analytics.

flash is a serious resource hog (2D portal put my macbook in leafblower mode), but I find it is only flash ads that make my opera crash nowadays.

So Adobe can't open-source Flash player because the codecs are proprietory - but many of these codecs are only in use because they are included in Flash. If they weren't included, no-one would use them.

One option might be to partly open the source. For instance, the player might be open-sourced with a licence allowing derivative works, but derivative works from the codecs would not be allowed (for eg security vetting purposes we need to see the codec source, even if we can't modify it without permission).

Alternatively, Adobe might reveal the code but only allow derivative works which they approve of. If someone found a few mistakes, or perhaps a security hole, they might submit a patch to Adobe, who could then include it or not. If Adobe are sensitive enough they'll get some free code and a lot of free code inspection out of it.

As good as free-as-in-beer open source? No, but better than what we have now. Eventually we will move to fully open-source codecs as well, but that will take some time yet, and this might be a good step along the path.

Instead of trying to get something for free, why don't they just make their own? According to the Open Saucers failure to give away your product spells doom for a company anyway so if Adobe doesn't want to play in the commune that shouldn't upset people...The the commune build it's own and then we'll watch and see if the OSS version kills Adobe.

Debates like this sound fishy.... If you don't give us your product you're not being fair! What the hell is that?

How about YOU give US "a freakin' break"? Do us all a favor and keep your ignorance to yourself. Being an individual user of a non-popular operating system, things like ease-of-use, market share, and matters of law may not matter to you, but I can assure you they matter very much to software companies.

Your suggestion of ripping out the licensed codecs would immediately break the player. I can imagine the discussion now: "Hey, let's release a player that won't actually play anything. Play something? Heck, it won't even compile!' " Most people DON'T want to download additional software and/or compile in order to use a utility. You obviously don't mind, and that's fine, that's your choice. But the majority of people DO mind. Issues like codecs and compiling are far over the heads of the average user. Most users can't even tell you what software they use (such as when users say "I'm using Windows 2007", confusing it with Office 2007). Can you really blame Adobe for wanting to keep it simple for them?

And it should go without saying, but just because a piece of software exists does not mean it's legal or that it's legal to use it. Look at all the MP3 encoders (standalone or as part of a larger product). I would venture a guess that 90% are not legal, since the MP3 format is patent-encumbered, and encoding MP3s requires a patent license.

Flash has problems way beyond not being "open" software. A Flash application becomes a black hole of content. Stuff can go inside and animate, perform actions, and so on, but nothing comes out. A flash application has to make do with very cumbersome metheods to hook up any internal elements to outsitde elements such as the browser DOM or other flash applications on the same page..

And then, generating the Flash content is an exercise in patience since the interfaces are hostile and limiting in the extreme. It is still based on a very dysfunctional timeline-based animation metaphor, where as new tools such as SVG and Silverlight are not. While Sliverlight may also be proprietary software, it has external interfaces that can be used by a wide range of external objects and code, making it far, far more flexible. Silverlight can be designed in a modern object-oriented way. It was written for programmers, unlike Flash which appears to be built for graphic designers, with programming metaphors just tacked on.

While an open standard SVG has the problem that Adobe has abandoned it, and Microsoft has moved onto Silverlight because they wanted to add a more robust programming model, So SVG doesn't run consistently on any modern browsers, and unlike SIlverlight it is a display / animation language, and nothing more. Any SVG application functionality has to be provided by external scripting, which is still better than Flash, since you can use browser Javascript and you have full access to all of the objects inside a SVG graphic rather than the buggy, slow ActionScript used by Flash.

So there are no really great solutions yet. Silverlight is robust and flexible, and modern with really elegant programming metaphors, but proprietary and not quite ready yet. Flash is proprietary, poorly conceived, closed, yet ubiquitous, and SVG is open, very easy to work with, but not implemented very widely and reliably on modern browsers.

So we still are waiting for a decent web graphical interface. HTML ain't it. My bet is on Silverlight even though it isn't open, it just blows the others away with capability. The programmers that get over religious objections to closed software are going to find it a rich and productive environment for robust distributed applications.

It already IS open source.

If you don't like the way Google have obeyed the GPL then your code should be released under the AGPLv3. Lots of people don't like that license because it has "more restrictions" but they fit with what you want Google to do, so you should like it.

PS the adverts ARE open: you can display adverts from the same people Google do and get paid the same rate of clickthrough.

And with Flash that makes five.

But one of them is not like the others. One of those solutions is not quite the same. One of those things is doing its own thing.

Now it's time to play our game.

Flash is the only one where you must be approved to create interoperable programs. Flash is the only one that will not work on x64. Flash is the only one that will not run on any CPU with the power to decode fast enough.

Swfdec or Gnash. Only option for Flash playback in 64bit browsers.

Patents on software (math) may be not universal, but it is valid in United States, thus if your country is a signatory of the Berne Convention, WTO, TRIPS and GATTS, those USA patents that cover codecs is valid in your country. Your country may ban software patents, but I bet it only bans people from registering software patents on your country. Your country will have to recognize those software patents from USA (and other signatory countries that also recognize software patents) or else if the problem is big enough, USA trade representatives may make a complaint to WTO and retaliate in many ways, such as imposing tariffs barriers or worse, not recognizing your country non-software patents.

No, you're wrong.

US patents are considered "prior art" for UK patents, but that is as far as WTO goes.

They aren't even legal in the US if expressed as mathematical formulae.

And patents do not stop (in the US) ***personal*** use of a patent. So you can download the patented code from some other area that doesn't recognise that patent (much as the holywood industry ignored Edison's patents) and use it yourself. You can't export it to someone in a business relationship, however.