Re: www/opera-flashplugin

2011-04-22 Thread Ahlsen-Girard, Edward F CTR USAF AFSOC AFSOC/A6OK
On 2011-04-22 12:18:53, David Coppa wrote: > > jokes apart, gnash-0.8.9 works sufficiently well with YouTube.com > (better than flash7 for sure ;)) > > cheers, > David > > Which browser if any are you using? Ed Ahlsen-Girard

Re: www/opera-flashplugin

2011-04-22 Thread David Coppa
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 2:14 PM, wrote: > You mean my intertubes won't have adverts? I won't be allowed the > premium, enterprise-level, user-empowering, web 2.0 experience that > flash provides? That sounds *awful*. > > On the other hand - if it's already too late for me to watch funny cat > vi

Re: www/opera-flashplugin

2011-04-22 Thread openbsd
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 04:12:21PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: > Since nowadays not even YouTube supports flash7 anymore, I'd suggest > www/opera-flashplugin can go into the Attic. > > Thoughts? > You mean my intertubes won't have adverts? I won't be allowed the premium, enterprise-level, user-emp

Re: www/opera-flashplugin

2011-04-21 Thread Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 04:12:21PM +0200, David Coppa wrote: > Since nowadays not even YouTube supports flash7 anymore, I'd suggest > www/opera-flashplugin can go into the Attic. > > Thoughts? Kill it with fire! -- Cheers, Jasper "Capable, generous men do not create victims, they nurture them.

Re: www/opera-flashplugin

2011-04-21 Thread Antoine Jacoutot
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, David Coppa wrote: > Since nowadays not even YouTube supports flash7 anymore, I'd suggest > www/opera-flashplugin can go into the Attic. > > Thoughts? I sure wouldn't cry over it. -- Antoine

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-11 Thread Mark Linimon
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:52:16PM +0200, Johan Zandin wrote: > After reading the whole license, I don´t think a primary goal for Adobe > is to forbid BSD systems. It would probably be possible to add FreeBSD, > NetBSD and OpenBSD as Authorized Operating Systems, if someone cared > enough to ask

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-11 Thread Johan Zandin
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Ian McWilliam wrote: the following is wholly unreasonable *For the avoidance of doubt, no embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, or any other operating systems, are included as Authorized Operating Systems.* After reading the whole license, I don´t t

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-10 Thread Adam
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:40:03 +1000 Ian McWilliam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. License Restrictions > > b. You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or > electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or > over a network. That's why pkgs aren't distributed.

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-10 Thread Ian McWilliam
Rod.. Whitworth wrote: On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:40:03 +1000, Ian McWilliam wrote: b. You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network. So, even on a "permitted" operating system, you breach t

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-10 Thread Rod.. Whitworth
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:40:03 +1000, Ian McWilliam wrote: >b. You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or >electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or >over a network. > So, even on a "permitted" operating system, you breach the licence by dowloading it fro

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-10 Thread Ian McWilliam
Nikolay Sturm wrote: * Ian McWilliam [2006-04-10]: Yes we care, the following is wholly unreasonable Pluralis majestatis? I don't care about the license, as it only covers usage, so every user has to make up his own mind. I don't see how the port would be affected. Nikolay 3.

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-10 Thread Nikolay Sturm
* Ian McWilliam [2006-04-10]: > Yes we care, the following is wholly unreasonable Pluralis majestatis? I don't care about the license, as it only covers usage, so every user has to make up his own mind. I don't see how the port would be affected. Nikolay

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-10 Thread Ian McWilliam
Christian Weisgerber wrote: The FreeBSD people just removed their Macromedia Flash plugin ports after somebody actually read the license and noticed that users are only allowed to run the player on "Authorized Operating Systems", which does not include BSD: http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/dow

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-10 Thread Andreas Kahari
On 10/04/06, D. E. Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The FreeBSD people just removed their Macromedia Flash plugin ports >after somebody actually read the license and noticed that users are >only allowed to run the player on "Authorized Operating Systems", >which does not include BS

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-10 Thread D. E. Evans
The FreeBSD people just removed their Macromedia Flash plugin ports after somebody actually read the license and noticed that users are only allowed to run the player on "Authorized Operating Systems", which does not include BSD: Well, "Macintosh operating systems" could be considered

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-10 Thread D. E. Evans
I read the license before import and it says "Linux operating systems" are authorized but it's just a kernel, which we happen to emulate, right? The phrase, "For the avoidance of doubt, no embedded or device versions of the above operating systems" might kill that idea.

Re: www/opera-flashplugin license

2006-04-10 Thread Jolan Luff
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:51:00PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > The FreeBSD people just removed their Macromedia Flash plugin ports > after somebody actually read the license and noticed that users are > only allowed to run the player on "Authorized Operating Systems", > which does not incl