Would it be an option to use the GNASH server implementation at the WMF end. As long as a particular Flash file works, it can be served with a completely free software stack. It is then for the end-user to choose to use either the Gnash or the Flash client software..
There are advantages to Gnash, it has among other things a lower memory foot print..
I agree with you completely, that Flash is useful as a transitional
technology. But I got a very firm no from Danese who is interpreting
what the Board has said in the past.
There was a thread on Wikitech-L about this (you were probably
distracted at the time due to family stuff).
On 9/17/10 2:25 PM, Michael Dale wrote:
> On 09/17/2010 12:24 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
>> Discussions about using closed source tools are not taboo. Not at all, I
>> think we should continue to review decisions about tools. I myself have
>> raised questions about (for instance) our decision to never use Flash,
>> even if we use a 100% free toolchain.
> I don't think we were ever against flash player as part of a tool set to
> widely support free formats.
> Flash is widely deployed consistent applet environment, there is no
> reason to avoid supporting it if it helps distribute ~free~ content. For
> example we have had brief talks of adding flash svg viewer so that IE
> users could better interact with SVG files. And you can be sure that
> once adobe ships native support for WebM it will provide much better
> experience for IE visitors to view free format videos than the
> fragmented java VM ecosystem that cortado has to run in.
> The foundation has only had a position of support for free formats, it
> has to my knowledge never stated any position against proprietary
> clients viewing free content or open source applets in proprietary
> platforms. Most of our visitors use IE after all.
> Commons-l mailing list
Neil Kandalgaonkar |) <email@example.com>
Commons-l mailing list