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?
