On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 01:19:57PM -0500, Jacob S wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:32:49 -0400 > Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:49:12AM -0700 or thereabouts, Paul Johnson > > wrote: > > > On Monday 21 August 2006 08:01, Stephen wrote: > > > > > > If it were closed source, then implementations of it wouldn't be > > > > allowed to exist such as MING, the various open source players, > > > > and editors. > > > > > The "standard" itself is closed, so the best you can hope for is > > > broken compatibility in the long term. > > > > It is NOT a closed standard. > > Please present proof of this. As in Adobe's documentation of the > format. Any lack of prosecution by Adobe does not mean it is an open > standard, as we witnessed with gif images in recent history.
In fact, the standard is not open. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWF#Licensing. In any case, "Flash" (which is a program) is not open-source, any more than Acrobat is just because PDF is, in fact, open. -- Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read my blog at nitpickingblog.blogspot.com. Reviews! Observations! Stupid mistakes you can correct! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
