Freeness (Re: Idea for expanded support of some non-free software)

[thully at umich.edu]

Yes- I should clarify - I'm mostly interested in proper support for Flash and
Java in Ubuntu (meaning - it should be tested to work properly w/sound and
everything).  These are easy to install for web pages already (just go to a
Flash website and it prompts to download Flash for you), I just feel that since
Flash and Java are in "common use", Ubuntu developers should try to ensure these
work right.  I've looked into this myself, and found a possible solution
involving a simple ESD settings change - which I think would be a good default
for Ubuntu which allow legacy apps (including Flash) to work w/sound while not
crippling ESD apps.

As far as MP3, Ubuntu has also done a decent job supporting this through the
gstreamer0.8-mad package in universe (for playback only, but up until recently
Windows didn't even have MP3 ripping by default).  My only suggestion for this
is to prompt to install this when a user attempts to play an MP3.

I'm sorry if I've been a bit too harsh with everybody about this issue.  I just
felt that having broken Flash and hiding MP3 support away in universe rather
than offering an easy interface to install is unacceptable on a modern
operating system.  I realize Ubuntu's strict policies on free software, I was
just trying to advocate a minimal amount of testing to ensure that popular
proprietary formats like Flash would at least play properly if the user
installs it through firefox or multiverse.

On this note, thread closed.  We can continue to discuss the possible solutions
to the sound server issue in that thread.
Quoting Jerry Haltom <wasabi at larvalstage.net>:

> On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 21:41 -0500, thully at umich.edu wrote:
> > How, then, is Ubuntu legally providing "dummy packages" for Flash in
> multiverse?
>
> Oh look. So I guess you have nothing to complain about, right? What more
> do you want? :)
>
> > What about MP3 support (in universe)?
> > Quoting Jerry Haltom <wasabi at larvalstage.net>:
> >
> > > Let me reiterate the same stuff 10 others have already done, again:
> > >
> > > > In the case of drivers, Ubuntu takes care of this by distributing some
> > > non-free
> > > > wi-fi and video drivers.  However, there are other categories of
> software
> > > that
> > > > have a similar situation that it seems like Ubuntu should support -
> namely
> > > Java
> > > > and Flash.  These are utilized on many websites, and while the web is
> > > usable
> > > > without them (just as video cards can be used without the proprietary
> > > drivers)
> > > > users do lose the ability to use certain websites and online games
> (just as
> > > > users lose 3D capability by not using the proprietary video drivers).
> > >
> > > NVidia and ATI specifically allow distribution as part of their license
> > > agreements. This is an instance where Ubuntu has broken it's "free only"
> > > stance to suit the users: because they can, and because a distribution
> > > that doesn't boot on any video card is pretty useless.
> > >
> > > > I realize that Java and Flash may have more restrictive of license
> terms
> > > than
> > > > the ATI and NVidia drivers - however, software like this can be
> distributed
> > > by
> > > > using a "dummy package" that downloads the software from the official
> > > website
> > > > and then configures it to work in Ubuntu.  While these are currently
> > > available
> > >
> > > This is an assumption. How do you know this software can be created?
> > > Have you read the agreements?
> > >
> > > Ubuntu and Debian provide a "dummy" package for Java, called
> > > java-package. You acquire the Sun provided .bin file from Sun, after
> > > agreeing to their use terms, and then run this package on it. Boom, you
> > > have a .deb to install. The package does not download the file from Sun
> > > automatically, as doing so we would have to present you Sun's license
> > > agreement. It is not Ubuntu's job to present you Sun's license
> > > agreement. Sun may change it. It is probably even illegal to copy their
> > > license under copyright law.
> > >
> > > > in multiverse, they are unsupported and breakage-prone (currently in
> Hoary,
> > > I
> > > > get no sound in Flash at all - rendering some Flash-based sites
> useless).
> > > > While some may dispute whether Flash and Java are really necessities, I
> > > don't
> > >
> > > Same situation with Macromedia. Have you read Macromedia's license
> > > agreement? It even prohibits distribution within a corporate environment
> > > unless you fax in and sign an additional document: FOR WINDOWS!
> > >
> > > Perhaps a "flash-package" in the spirit of Java package IS in order. If
> > > so, I suggest you please create such a package such as somebody did for
> > > java-package in Debian. The Ubuntu developers have their hands full with
> > > a ton of other things which are more than likely much more important
> > > than this. Be sure to read the license to know if any modification of
> > > the binary as distributed by Macromedia is allowed! If it is not
> > > allowed, Ubuntu would be placing their users in a position to
> > > unknowingly violate their agreement with Macromedia.
> > >
> > > > think they are any less necessary than ATI and NVidia's 3D graphic
> drivers
> > > - if
> > > > anything, they are more necessary.  Though money must be spent on
> graphics
> > > > cards, people also pay for an Internet connection, and they expect to
> be
> > > able
> > > > to utilize
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, since this seems very similar to the case of ATI/NVidia, Ubuntu
> > > wouldn't
> > > > break their principles any more by including a supported method to
> > > configure
> > > > and use Flash and Sun's Java implementation (but not necessarily
> > > distributing
> > > > them) than they do when they include ATI/NVidia drivers.    However, I
> seem
> > > to
> > > > be in the minority on this list, and I realize that.  Can someone
> clarify
> > > why
> > > > the case of Flash/Java is different than the case of ATI/NVidia for me?
> > >
> > > Just did. In fact I have a few times. A few other people have done so as
> > > well. Please read the previous messages from numerous parties.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I realize this thread has gotten large and longwinded, but this is an
> > > important
> > > > issue - and it should be discussed.  If there is a better forum for
> this
> > > > discussion, please tell me and I will move this thread.
> > >
> > > No kidding. This thread should die.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Jerry Haltom <wasabi at larvalstage.net>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Jerry Haltom <wasabi at larvalstage.net>
>
>
>
>