Ubuntu
pepperflashplugin-nonfree package

Curious about the license

Asked by null null

Hi. I found this package and realize it works for installing flash in Chromium. This is nice.

I was curious, though, what exactly the details of the license I'm agreeing to are. I couldn't find out. Is it allowed to be distributed and used in the way it's being distributed? (with chrome,then used outside of chrome)

I hope this isn't too inconvenient of a thing to ask.

Thanks,

Patrick Erickson

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
Ubuntu pepperflashplugin-nonfree Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
null null
Solved:
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
actionparsnip (andrew-woodhead666) said : 		#1

Pepper Flash is proprietary to Google and not open source software. Chromium is what Chrome is based on so the plugin architecture is the same. As Pepper Flash is not free to distribute in the same way as other Flash solutions you are accepting that we basically have no idea what is under the hood as it is not freely documented. Only Google knows. There are other things that I'm not sure of. You can read the disclaimer next time you install the plugin or Chrome browser using cursor keys instead of hitting TAB then ENTER to accept.

Revision history for this message
null null (nullnull1-deactivatedaccount) said : 		#2

I understand that it's proprietary. I'm wondering why it's okay to distribute it in the weird way that it's being distributed.

I didn't see a license when installing the pepperflashplugin-nonfree package.

Revision history for this message
Daniel Letzeisen (dtl131) said : 		#3

Here is Adobe's license for Flash 14 (English is page 87/304):
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/Flash%20Player_14.0.pdf

Chrome TOS (see section for Adobe): http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/eula_text.html

I'm not a lawyer, but the way I read it, as long as the pepperflash installer forces you to agree to Adobe's EULA, it is complying. If the installer did not confrom to dfsg, then Debian would have it in its non-free section (or not allow it all).

Revision history for this message
null null (nullnull1-deactivatedaccount) said : 		#4

Thanks for the explanation.