Filed under: Video, Adobe, Commercial, Open Source
Flash isn't going open source, but it may already be more open than Moonlight
While most of the inner workings of Flash are already open (The Flex SDK, Blaze DS, and ActionScript virtual machine) there continue to be cries for it to be fully open. Among the stumbling blocks preventing that are the proprietary codecs Adobe licenses (h.264 for video, HE-AAC for audio). "We will continue to open source the technologies that power Flash whenever we have the right to do it," McAllister told me.
Flash is by far the most dominant platform for delivering 80% of all web video and countless browser-based games. Computer World hypothesized that Microsoft's support of the OSS Moonlight project - which has brought Silverlight to Linux - may be putting the heat may be on Adobe to counter quickly.
Adobe sees things differently. Microsoft knows they can't close the gap without help, so getting behind a community effort like Moonlight "Open source can be used as a marketing tool and competitive weapon," McAllister explained. "Silverlight doesn't have the ecosystem that Flash does, so Microsoft is looking at different ways to compete," he continued.
On top of that, it's important to note that Moonlight isn't completely open. Like Flash, Moonlight makes use of third-party codecs that are closed.
Want more good news? Microsoft only "covenants to not sue" over Moonlight applications that utilize it 1) as an in-browser plugin 2) on a personal computer and 3) aren't licensed as GPLv3 or a "similar license." The icing on the cake? That protection only applies to Novell and its subsidiaries - so your independent app wouldn't count, unless Novell owns 50% of you.
Adobe, on the other hand, grants full patent use to anyone who builds anything with Flash. So while you can develop and sell whatever the heck you want using the technologies that power Flash and Adobe will post about it on their Twitter account, developing with Moonlight could result in nasty legal proceedings.
So which platform is really more "open?" Flash or Moonlight?
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
John said 1:37PM on 5-19-2009
Just get 64-bit support out the door, and I'll be happy.
Reply
David said 5:11PM on 5-19-2009
Flash.
Reply
David said 2:45PM on 5-19-2009
Flash
Reply
alex1jam said 3:31PM on 5-19-2009
Flash is the best. I mean M$ is such a nasty toxic company i will never want anything to do with sneaky powerful and very mean company with them. I got 0 trust on then zero.
Reply
Obvious said 4:08PM on 5-19-2009
Written like a true fanboy.
I don't think one technology is necessarily better than the other. Flash has been around longer, and has benefited from over 10 years of refinement. Silverlight is chomping at the heels or besting individual features of Flash with every release, all in its ~2 year lifespan. The existence of Sliverlight fosters competition and innovation in the RIA space, and to decry it or the support that MS is showing the Mono team is tantamount to sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly singing.
The best way I've heard it put is like this: Flash is a designer-focused technology with development support bolted on. Silverlight is a developer-centric technology with design support bolted on.
Reply
Lee Mathews said 4:20PM on 5-19-2009
So you're ok with the lack of legal protection for non-Novell developers?
Obvious said 4:55PM on 5-19-2009
@Lee
Please refer to the xoluxo's comment for a well formed rebuttal.
Also, I will note that my original comment may well have been somewhat off topic when it comes to the legal noodlings of either Adobe or Microsoft... It was meant more as criticism for the overwhelmingly biased tone of the post.
@xoluxo
Thanks. Regardless of your stance on which technology you prefer, your comment makes a good point.
darrenryall said 4:22PM on 5-19-2009
I've always viewed Silverlight in the same way ever since I first heard the name (and who was making it). As an infestation of your OS, filling it with garbage code and requiring fumigation.
Microsoft Silverfish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverfish
Microsoft also caused damage to books, Encarta anyone? :)
Reply
xoluxo said 4:28PM on 5-19-2009
Your reading of the Microsoft covenant is incorrect, and you are twisting it for the sake of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Anyone that *downloads* the Moonlight code from a Novell site is covered by the covenant:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx
In the exact way that *anyone* downloading from Adobe.Com is covered for Flash use.
This covenant is not issued by Novell, but by Microsoft where the claim they will not assert their patents to anyone that downloads the code from Novell.
Has Adobe licensed the "Kodak" patents that Java was found to infringe a few years ago? It seems that without this license, some users might be liable to a patent lawsuit from Kodak if they are not careful.
See, patent FUD goes both ways.
Reply