Quote from: markm on June 14, 2013, 09:30:35 AM

Quote from: marticps on June 14, 2013, 09:21:45 AM

I agree with you with all you have said, it is rather better to use open source licenses. I will never give my money to companies such as Adobe. At this moment, due to my experience and free time, I can't manage to work with an open source alternative. But this doesn't mean that the work I create will be propietary work.

It is the actual product I am concerned about. A movie that you need a proprietary viewer to view is not suitable, it has to be in a codex that is open source and that has open source viewers available to view it.

Even if any open source viewers can view it, the actual media itself, the codex, the file they tell the viewer to display, should be an open source codex/format/type.

People should not need to use flash to see the thing.

Also, re "Being open source does mean that its source code is available for everybody to view, edit and redistribute it. The fact that Adobe Flash is not open source does not mean that the works created with it can't be open source.", we support free open source, not all open source. Commercial, proprietary etc open source does not qualify. Free as in freedom - to re-use, base derivative works on, alter, re-arrange, re-purpose, distribute, redistribute (all these freedoms go with it to those it is distributed to) etc - not necessarily free as in beer.

-MarkM-

I'm not sure if this is still under discussion, but IMO it shouldn't matter what software is used to make the video. That'd be if I made a Devcoin logo in Photoshop (not free or open source), then saved it as a PNG image and uploaded it with a CC license. The logo itself is free and open. Similarly, I could write some open source code in Visual Studio, and the code would still be open source. Or I could write an article on Devtome using a proprietary keyboard on my proprietary laptop...