Menu
▾
▴
gplflash-devel — Developers mailing list
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2004 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(19) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
(11) |
Mar
(29) |
Apr
(74) |
May
(25) |
Jun
(174) |
Jul
(92) |
Aug
(12) |
Sep
(58) |
Oct
(12) |
Nov
(5) |
Dec
(40) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(22) |
Feb
(7) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(17) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(6) |
|
From: Tomas G. <tom...@ya...> - 2006-02-03 13:42:19
|
Hi all, Since nobody has be screaming and shouting about the hinted closure of this project, it will now happen... In near future i will start to shut down the gplflash project, by closing the forums, the mailinglist and making the wiki read-only. If there is a wish for it, i will make a gplflash2-death-release. BUT this is not the end of a open source and free flash player, the work continues! Most gplflash-developers is jumping on the gnash train (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/), and we hope you will do the same. Other options includes swfdec or just using the official flash player. I hope we meet again! Tomas |
|
From: Tomas G. <tom...@ya...> - 2006-01-24 19:14:28
|
Hi, > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 00:08 +0100, Tomas Groth wrote: > > Does this mean that the silent majority agrees that gnash is the way > > to go? > > As long as gnash uses gstreamer and hence gstreamer-mp3 plugins, that > seems reasonable. Otherwise I'd be happier seeing people get behind > swfdec instead. > It hasen't yet been decided if gstreamer should be should to handle mp3, but my guess is that it's very likely to happen. cheers, Tomas |
|
From: Tomas G. <tom...@ya...> - 2006-01-24 19:13:33
|
Hi, > > >It looks like the best thing for the rest of the GPLFlash developers > >to do would be to join Gnash. GPLFlash has had very few updates to CVS > >recently and right now doesn't have much more than a plan for a > >rewrite. > > > >I don't see why it should be under the LGPL instead of GPL. If someone > >wants to use it with nonfree software, like Opera, they wouldn't care > >about Macromedia's binaries being nonfree also. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry but this is a very short sighted view of the potential of a > flash rendering lib. Flash can be used in many more places than just as > a plugin inside a web browser. It is an easy way to add cute graphics > and animations to any existing app. It makes it possible to have > interactive graphics in any app as you would just have to create a > "flash player" widget just like there are "text label" widgets except it > offers much more power to the GUI designer. SVG is not there yet, it's > slow, the tools are not ready for animations and interactivity, the > files are often quite huge and writing a compliant renderer is an order > of magnitude harder. Writing a decent flash renderer (such as gameswf) > is easier and the tools are there, and better yet, the artists CAN > actually use the tools! > If the purpose was to produce a flash like format, but in 'libre' > fashion then GPL might make more sense as you could argue that it's > going to be the killer libre app (well, I wouldn't bet on that but > that's another point...). What we're talking about here is the > reimplementation of an existing standard. There is absolutely zero > invention in that. 99% of it is sweat, code and reverse ingineering (sp?). > Taking a well done public domain lib, slapping a GPL sticker to it and > keeping all the new changes from going back to the original author > doesn't seem nice to me. LGPL seems like a much better mix of both > worlds as it benefits to everyone, and you may also receive many more > contributions from full time developpers than in a GPL lib because of > the nature of the lib (I'm aware that this is very specific to the > domain at hand: embedable animations for the web and applications)... > The GPL-license of gnash is not likely to change, but if you want a LGPL lib you might want to look at swfdec, especially the cvs version. Otherwise consider to make a wrapper for gnash. I know mplayer can be put into slavemode, and a similar thing could probably be done for gnash. cheers, Tomas |
|
From: Sebastien M. <me...@me...> - 2006-01-24 02:50:01
|
a thing wrote: >It looks like the best thing for the rest of the GPLFlash developers >to do would be to join Gnash. GPLFlash has had very few updates to CVS >recently and right now doesn't have much more than a plan for a >rewrite. > >I don't see why it should be under the LGPL instead of GPL. If someone >wants to use it with nonfree software, like Opera, they wouldn't care >about Macromedia's binaries being nonfree also. > > > I'm sorry but this is a very short sighted view of the potential of a flash rendering lib. Flash can be used in many more places than just as a plugin inside a web browser. It is an easy way to add cute graphics and animations to any existing app. It makes it possible to have interactive graphics in any app as you would just have to create a "flash player" widget just like there are "text label" widgets except it offers much more power to the GUI designer. SVG is not there yet, it's slow, the tools are not ready for animations and interactivity, the files are often quite huge and writing a compliant renderer is an order of magnitude harder. Writing a decent flash renderer (such as gameswf) is easier and the tools are there, and better yet, the artists CAN actually use the tools! If the purpose was to produce a flash like format, but in 'libre' fashion then GPL might make more sense as you could argue that it's going to be the killer libre app (well, I wouldn't bet on that but that's another point...). What we're talking about here is the reimplementation of an existing standard. There is absolutely zero invention in that. 99% of it is sweat, code and reverse ingineering (sp?). Taking a well done public domain lib, slapping a GPL sticker to it and keeping all the new changes from going back to the original author doesn't seem nice to me. LGPL seems like a much better mix of both worlds as it benefits to everyone, and you may also receive many more contributions from full time developpers than in a GPL lib because of the nature of the lib (I'm aware that this is very specific to the domain at hand: embedable animations for the web and applications)... Sebastien |
|
From: a t. <its...@gm...> - 2006-01-24 02:13:35
|
It looks like the best thing for the rest of the GPLFlash developers to do would be to join Gnash. GPLFlash has had very few updates to CVS recently and right now doesn't have much more than a plan for a rewrite. I don't see why it should be under the LGPL instead of GPL. If someone wants to use it with nonfree software, like Opera, they wouldn't care about Macromedia's binaries being nonfree also. |
|
From: David W. <dw...@in...> - 2006-01-23 04:30:10
|
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 00:08 +0100, Tomas Groth wrote: > Does this mean that the silent majority agrees that gnash is the way > to go? As long as gnash uses gstreamer and hence gstreamer-mp3 plugins, that seems reasonable. Otherwise I'd be happier seeing people get behind swfdec instead. -- dwmw2 |
|
From: Bastiaan J. <b.j...@pl...> - 2006-01-23 00:18:12
|
Tomas Groth wrote: > It's now been almost a week since I announced that several members of the > gplflash-team is recommending switching to "gnash" a newlystarted flashplayer > forked from gameswf. Since then only one person (as I see it) has raised > concerns about this, and the arguments where license related (gpl vs lgpl), not > related to features, coding, design etc. > > Does this mean that the silent majority agrees that gnash is the way to go? > > Several gpflash-developers has already joined in the gnash-team, will you all > follow? I, for one, will. As far as licensing is concerned, I'm actually happier writing GPL code than LGPL. Bastiaan |
|
From: Tomas G. <tom...@ya...> - 2006-01-22 23:08:49
|
Hi all, It's now been almost a week since I announced that several members of the gplflash-team is recommending switching to "gnash" a newlystarted flashplayer forked from gameswf. Since then only one person (as I see it) has raised concerns about this, and the arguments where license related (gpl vs lgpl), not related to features, coding, design etc. Does this mean that the silent majority agrees that gnash is the way to go? Several gpflash-developers has already joined in the gnash-team, will you all follow? cheers, Tomas |
|
From: Sebastien M. <me...@me...> - 2006-01-16 13:56:27
|
strk wrote: > You're company's decision could become: > - Pay MacroMedia to get a library for use > in their products > - Make their product GPL. > > Neither is sensible. The first one isn't technically feasible as I need the lib to be able to render to an OpenGL context and to be embeddable in our LGPL UI engine (NUI). The second is not sensible (business-wise) considering the kind of products were working on (pro audio apps). > Since this is a business decision it should follow business > rules: pay for what you need. > > And that's what we do. We work daily on improving the free software that we use: NGL and NUI ( https://gna.org/projects/ngl/ ) have been mostly supported by the company I work for. We also have contributed to many other projects, such as PortAudio and PortMidi over the years. We pay with code, as many other companies do. And we have more than once, paid external programmers to add some features we needed for such or such project. > Pushing for an LGPL library for use in proprietary software > sounds too much as getting manpower for free, and that's an > horrible thing to do. Ok, you get a leaving, but what about > other developers ? Why should they work for free on something > that can then be used to make proprietary software ? > > My feeling is that while not being totaly the other way around actually the situation really is 50/50. Most free software projects can only survive thanks to company paying their programmers to work on it while other projects are 100% surviving thanks to passionate individuals. I think GPLFlash could be more a 50/50 situation where many individuals are committed to it, it could very well use some full-time work force. > This is a distortion started since Eric Raymond founded the > "OS" term payed by Mozilla guys. There's a run of big companies > that see in the "OpenSource" movement a brand new opportunity > of lowering manpower costs. > > Not my thinking, really. I'm looking forward to a symbiosis here, not a confrontation and even less a robbery :). > If your company made substantial contributions that motivation > could hold, otherwise it would just be an unfair attempt. > > If the path chosen for GPLFlash is compatible with our needs and abilities, I'm pretty sure we could make substantial contributions, as we have done for other projects... > My 2 cents... > > --strk; > > Cheers, Sebastien -- Sebastien Metrot Lead Dev. http://www.usbsounds.com |
|
From: strk <st...@ke...> - 2006-01-16 13:27:07
|
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +0100, Sebastien Metrot wrote: > I have no use of a flash player. All I need is a flash player library > that is easy to integrate into my own libs and programs. My libs are > LGPL and the programs I work on are proprietary. I get paid for both my > LGPL work and proprietary work so I can very well contribute to the free > world and make a living at the same time. As soon as GPL software comes > into play I can't use it at all because the people who I work for do not > want they products to be GPL (and it would really not make sense as a > business decision). I really wish the world was different but for now I > have to live by their rules... > I think LGPL is the best solution for most libs, and GPL is the best > solution for most free apps. This permits to have the best synergy going > on between the free software world and the proprietary one. If gnash was > implementing an original design for an original idea it would make sense > to have it go the GPL way. But as it a re implementation of someone > else's standard I don't see the point in making it GPL. > > Sebastien You're company's decision could become: - Pay MacroMedia to get a library for use in their products - Make their product GPL. Since this is a business decision it should follow business rules: pay for what you need. Pushing for an LGPL library for use in proprietary software sounds too much as getting manpower for free, and that's an horrible thing to do. Ok, you get a leaving, but what about other developers ? Why should they work for free on something that can then be used to make proprietary software ? This is a distortion started since Eric Raymond founded the "OS" term payed by Mozilla guys. There's a run of big companies that see in the "OpenSource" movement a brand new opportunity of lowering manpower costs. If your company made substantial contributions that motivation could hold, otherwise it would just be an unfair attempt. My 2 cents... --strk; |
|
From: Sebastien M. <me...@me...> - 2006-01-16 13:04:25
|
I have no use of a flash player. All I need is a flash player library that is easy to integrate into my own libs and programs. My libs are LGPL and the programs I work on are proprietary. I get paid for both my LGPL work and proprietary work so I can very well contribute to the free world and make a living at the same time. As soon as GPL software comes into play I can't use it at all because the people who I work for do not want they products to be GPL (and it would really not make sense as a business decision). I really wish the world was different but for now I have to live by their rules... I think LGPL is the best solution for most libs, and GPL is the best solution for most free apps. This permits to have the best synergy going on between the free software world and the proprietary one. If gnash was implementing an original design for an original idea it would make sense to have it go the GPL way. But as it a re implementation of someone else's standard I don't see the point in making it GPL. Sebastien strk wrote: > Licensing is one of the reason why I moved to Gnash. > What exactly prevents you from using a GPL flash player ? > > --strk; > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:40:42PM +0100, Sebastien Metrot wrote: > >> Personally I'd rather see the gnash licence changed to LGPL for the libs >> and GPL for the apps. Otherwise I will not be able to use it/contribute >> to it and I'll continue using the original GameSWF in my LGPL libs. The >> other solution would be to use GameSWF as a base for LGPL Flash and have >> the redesign based on it but with the LGPL licence. >> >> My 0.02 euros >> >> Sebastien >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Gplflash-devel mailing list > Gpl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gplflash-devel > -- Sebastien Metrot Lead Dev. http://www.usbsounds.com |
|
From: strk <st...@ke...> - 2006-01-16 12:52:34
|
Licensing is one of the reason why I moved to Gnash. What exactly prevents you from using a GPL flash player ? --strk; On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 01:40:42PM +0100, Sebastien Metrot wrote: > Personally I'd rather see the gnash licence changed to LGPL for the libs > and GPL for the apps. Otherwise I will not be able to use it/contribute > to it and I'll continue using the original GameSWF in my LGPL libs. The > other solution would be to use GameSWF as a base for LGPL Flash and have > the redesign based on it but with the LGPL licence. > > My 0.02 euros > > Sebastien |
|
From: Sebastien M. <me...@me...> - 2006-01-16 12:40:51
|
Personally I'd rather see the gnash licence changed to LGPL for the libs and GPL for the apps. Otherwise I will not be able to use it/contribute to it and I'll continue using the original GameSWF in my LGPL libs. The other solution would be to use GameSWF as a base for LGPL Flash and have the redesign based on it but with the LGPL licence. My 0.02 euros Sebastien strk wrote: > I'd be very happy to see you guys join the Gnash train. > > We need a Free flash player and the Free Software Foundation > will help fighting any legal obstacle. > > As with gplflash, Gnash still lacks documentation of the > general architecture. It sould be very helpful to have > the "redesign" team put their time in that and provide > a form of quality control in the early stages. > > Looking forward to see you aboard! > > --strk; > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:49:12PM +0100, Tomas Groth wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> As you might have noticed there hasen't been all that much activity around >> gplflash in the last 3-6 month. This has among other thing been due to the >> developers being busy with other things, and because we wanted to find out in >> what direction gplflash should go. It has been decided that the current design >> of gplflash2 is too mesy, and that a redesign is necessary in order to make the >> code more modular, and easier to understand, maintain, and add features. >> In order to make the startup of new design/code easy we took a closer look at a >> new kid on the block: "Gnash" - a newly greated fork of gameswf. Gnash got many >> of the features we would like to see in a new gplflash; more modular, and it's >> current support for animations is quite impressive, though it's missing some >> sound support and got no support for video. >> So the design team is putting forward a suggestion to skip the gplflash2 >> redesign, and instead jump on the gnash-train, since improving on gnash will >> probably be easier and more effective than starting from scratch. >> But what do you think about all this? Should we ditch the gplflash-project? Or >> shall we continue on our course with the independent re-design? >> >> Let the discussion begin! >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tomas >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Gplflash-devel mailing list > Gpl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gplflash-devel > -- Sebastien Metrot Lead Dev. http://www.usbsounds.com |
|
From: Tomas G. <tom...@ya...> - 2006-01-16 12:35:46
|
Hi Steven, > > So the design team is putting forward a suggestion to skip the gplflash2 > > redesign, and instead jump on the gnash-train, since improving on gnash > > will > > probably be easier and more effective than starting from scratch. > > But what do you think about all this? Should we ditch the > > gplflash-project? Or > > shall we continue on our course with the independent re-design? > > > > Let the discussion begin! > > > Tomas, have you compared the feature of gplflash and gnash? Does gplflash > have features that gnash doesn't provide? > Yes, gplflash2 got support for soundstreams and svq3 video (through ffmpeg), which gnash lacks, and some parts of the ActionScript liberary might more complete, but other parts is not. Gnash's script interpreter seems to be better than gplflash2's. Others might want to add something to the compare list... cheers, Tomas |
|
From: strk <st...@ke...> - 2006-01-16 12:21:21
|
I'd be very happy to see you guys join the Gnash train. We need a Free flash player and the Free Software Foundation will help fighting any legal obstacle. As with gplflash, Gnash still lacks documentation of the general architecture. It sould be very helpful to have the "redesign" team put their time in that and provide a form of quality control in the early stages. Looking forward to see you aboard! --strk; On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:49:12PM +0100, Tomas Groth wrote: > Hi all, > > As you might have noticed there hasen't been all that much activity around > gplflash in the last 3-6 month. This has among other thing been due to the > developers being busy with other things, and because we wanted to find out in > what direction gplflash should go. It has been decided that the current design > of gplflash2 is too mesy, and that a redesign is necessary in order to make the > code more modular, and easier to understand, maintain, and add features. > In order to make the startup of new design/code easy we took a closer look at a > new kid on the block: "Gnash" - a newly greated fork of gameswf. Gnash got many > of the features we would like to see in a new gplflash; more modular, and it's > current support for animations is quite impressive, though it's missing some > sound support and got no support for video. > So the design team is putting forward a suggestion to skip the gplflash2 > redesign, and instead jump on the gnash-train, since improving on gnash will > probably be easier and more effective than starting from scratch. > But what do you think about all this? Should we ditch the gplflash-project? Or > shall we continue on our course with the independent re-design? > > Let the discussion begin! > > Cheers, > > Tomas |
|
From: Steven G. <ste...@gm...> - 2006-01-16 12:07:51
|
On 1/16/06, Tomas Groth <tom...@ya...> wrote: > > Hi all, > > As you might have noticed there hasen't been all that much activity aroun= d > gplflash in the last 3-6 month. This has among other thing been due to th= e > developers being busy with other things, and because we wanted to find ou= t > in > what direction gplflash should go. It has been decided that the current > design > of gplflash2 is too mesy, and that a redesign is necessary in order to > make the > code more modular, and easier to understand, maintain, and add features. > In order to make the startup of new design/code easy we took a closer loo= k > at a > new kid on the block: "Gnash" - a newly greated fork of gameswf. Gnash go= t > many > of the features we would like to see in a new gplflash; more modular, and > it's > current support for animations is quite impressive, though it's missing > some > sound support and got no support for video. > So the design team is putting forward a suggestion to skip the gplflash2 > redesign, and instead jump on the gnash-train, since improving on gnash > will > probably be easier and more effective than starting from scratch. > But what do you think about all this? Should we ditch the > gplflash-project? Or > shall we continue on our course with the independent re-design? > > Let the discussion begin! Tomas, have you compared the feature of gplflash and gnash? Does gplflash have features that gnash doesn't provide? Cheers, > > Tomas > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D7637&alloc_id=3D16865&op=3Dclick > _______________________________________________ > Gplflash-devel mailing list > Gpl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gplflash-devel > -- Best Regards Steven Gong |
|
From: Tomas G. <tom...@ya...> - 2006-01-16 11:50:46
|
Hi all, As you might have noticed there hasen't been all that much activity around gplflash in the last 3-6 month. This has among other thing been due to the developers being busy with other things, and because we wanted to find out in what direction gplflash should go. It has been decided that the current design of gplflash2 is too mesy, and that a redesign is necessary in order to make the code more modular, and easier to understand, maintain, and add features. In order to make the startup of new design/code easy we took a closer look at a new kid on the block: "Gnash" - a newly greated fork of gameswf. Gnash got many of the features we would like to see in a new gplflash; more modular, and it's current support for animations is quite impressive, though it's missing some sound support and got no support for video. So the design team is putting forward a suggestion to skip the gplflash2 redesign, and instead jump on the gnash-train, since improving on gnash will probably be easier and more effective than starting from scratch. But what do you think about all this? Should we ditch the gplflash-project? Or shall we continue on our course with the independent re-design? Let the discussion begin! Cheers, Tomas |
|
From: Kristoffer <kf...@on...> - 2006-01-14 19:32:29
|
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:59:30 +0100, Dan Steinhauser <dan...@ig...> wrote: > GPLFlash: > > > My company is very interested in getting our flash-based application > working on Linux, we've tentatively targeted Fedora Core 4 as our > distribution of choice. > > > I'm not, myself, any great shakes at C++ development and am a novice > user of Linux, so I don't have a lot of competence and less time to see > how close your project might be to being able to meet our needs. > > > However, if y'all are interested, perhaps we can engage your services in > getting our application running on the Linux desktop in exchange for a > financial contribution to your project, or on a direct consulting basis? > > > Our goal is simply to achieve playback of our .swf on Linux as a > standalone desktop application, preferably as an independent executable, > but we'll certainly consider a "projector" type arrangement, too. > > > Our application requires a fairly substantial cross-section of the > functionality provided by flashPlayer 7. It is shipped on a > preconfigured machine whose only purpose is to run our application > (hence our eagerness to ditch windows!) > > > If this project is of interest to you I have a reference version of our > application available for you to look at and assess the > feasibility/scope of our project. > > > Thanks for your consideration and best of luck to you in your project. > > > - Dan Steinhauser, Lead Software Engineer > > Ignite!, Inc. > > Austin, Texas > i don't suppose you've checked out gnash? : http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ |
|
From: Dan S. <dan...@ig...> - 2006-01-13 23:03:30
|
GPLFlash: =20 My company is very interested in getting our flash-based application working on Linux, we've tentatively targeted Fedora Core 4 as our distribution of choice. =20 I'm not, myself, any great shakes at C++ development and am a novice user of Linux, so I don't have a lot of competence and less time to see how close your project might be to being able to meet our needs. =20 However, if y'all are interested, perhaps we can engage your services in getting our application running on the Linux desktop in exchange for a financial contribution to your project, or on a direct consulting basis? =20 Our goal is simply to achieve playback of our .swf on Linux as a standalone desktop application, preferably as an independent executable, but we'll certainly consider a "projector" type arrangement, too. =20 =20 Our application requires a fairly substantial cross-section of the functionality provided by flashPlayer 7. It is shipped on a preconfigured machine whose only purpose is to run our application (hence our eagerness to ditch windows!) =20 If this project is of interest to you I have a reference version of our application available for you to look at and assess the feasibility/scope of our project. =20 Thanks for your consideration and best of luck to you in your project. =20 - Dan Steinhauser, Lead Software Engineer Ignite!, Inc. Austin, Texas |
|
From: Michael C. <cor...@gm...> - 2006-01-13 18:14:21
|
Liu Hongbo, I saw your request to join our team on the sourceforge tracker. The best wa= y to speak with us is to mail the mailing list at gpl...@li... , this will send to me and all of the important developers. Right now, the whole project (gplflash2) is being redesigned from the groun= d up, and we are still discussing among us developers the best solution. The redesign is to make the code clearer, more modular, and easier to work with= . We are also considering contributing to another free-software flash project instead of redesigning this one, if we can find one that satisfies our goal= s for the redesign. If you are interested in helping with our free software flash player, we are glad to have you! Usually, the best way to join the team is to find bugs in the software, and send patches that fix problems. However, because we are redesigning the software right now, perhaps it's best to wait until we finalize the new design, or choose the future path of the project, that way you don't need to learn about code that we won't be using anymore. Hopefully this will be done in a few weeks. Please be aware from the beginning that we need all of our developers to do everything 100% legally. This means we cannot use the official documentatio= n from macromedia's website. We must achieve our goals without breaking the law. By the way, what computer skills do you have? How good are you with UNIX, CVS, C++, and Object-oriented programming ideas? Have you sent patches to a free software project before? What do you know about flash files? We are glad to have your help if we can! Sincerely, Mike > May I join in your team? My name is Liu Hongbo. > Email:lhb...@16... > hon...@et... |
|
From: DELIZY F. <fd...@un...> - 2006-01-03 23:17:01
|
I'll try to be there Tomas Groth wrote: >Hi all, > >As some of you might have heard, a re-design (as in program re-design, not >layout) meeting is to be held on our IRC channel on january 7th, at 19.00 CET >(13.00 EST, 23.30 IST). So if you want to help out in the design-process, this >is it! > >Hope to see you there, > >Tomas > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files >for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes >searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! >http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click >_______________________________________________ >Gplflash-devel mailing list >Gpl...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gplflash-devel > > > > |
|
From: Tomas G. <tom...@ya...> - 2006-01-03 22:59:58
|
Hi all, As some of you might have heard, a re-design (as in program re-design, not layout) meeting is to be held on our IRC channel on january 7th, at 19.00 CET (13.00 EST, 23.30 IST). So if you want to help out in the design-process, this is it! Hope to see you there, Tomas |
|
From: strk <st...@ke...> - 2006-01-03 19:08:41
|
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2006-January/005319.html --strk; /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / Respect for low technology. X Keep e-mail messages readable by any computer system. / \ Keep it ASCII. |
|
From: Tomas G. <tom...@ya...> - 2005-12-29 11:24:31
|
Hi, > > Just wanted tp plant the idea of developing a player for a specific > hardware-linux implementation. > > It would be great if Flash instructional units could be run on the $100 > laptop for 3rd world kids being developed at MIT, they hope to distribute > 100 million computers in 2007. Seems like their open source OS cost > controling approach might not fit in with Macromedia player licencing and > hardware requirements. > > http://laptop.media.mit.edu/ > > There is a software requirements page toughing on the unique requirements > of a Hard Drive less system using Flash memory based storage. > > I am not directly involved other than having some ambitions to create > modules for that playform. We aim to make gplflash as portable as possible, but i must admit that i'm not sure the 100$ laptop will be powerful enough to do the animations without lag. If it had 3d-hardware it might be able to do it, but it seems it doesn't have any. But time will show i guess... cheers, Tomas |
|
From: Web S. <web...@sb...> - 2005-12-29 02:47:56
|
Hi Just wanted tp plant the idea of developing a player for a specific hardware-linux implementation. It would be great if Flash instructional units could be run on the $100 laptop for 3rd world kids being developed at MIT, they hope to distribute 100 million computers in 2007. Seems like their open source OS cost controling approach might not fit in with Macromedia player licencing and hardware requirements. http://laptop.media.mit.edu/ There is a software requirements page toughing on the unique requirements of a Hard Drive less system using Flash memory based storage. I am not directly involved other than having some ambitions to create modules for that playform. Jake |
13 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.