Talk:Ruffle (software)

Creation of a separate Mike Welsh Page?

Background details relevant to why Mike Welsh's past work and why he had credentials to be able to start such a project might be tangibly relevant to the history of Ruffle, but just tangibly.

Perhaps starting a page for Mike Welch, himself, might make it easier to discern how much of that previous work is relevant to the creation & development of Ruffle and how much of it is personal.

Themadprogramer (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Legal situation

Did Adobe grant any rights for this project? I'm wondering that this isn't violating any patents or something MissMercy (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@MissMercy: How would an emulator be breaking any patent? Veverve (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I just thought it would because software patents exist. But of course I'm quite happy if it's no problem! Thanks for your response MissMercy (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In terms of patents, the only parts of Flash Player that have patent encumberance would be video codecs (some of them), and DRM (which I will not touch with a ten foot pole without a signed waiver from Adobe). That means we can't implement an H.264 decoder - though that's the one particular codec browsers already support anyway. VP6 is patent-resistant by design and Google owns On2 now, so it should be fine. H.263 was patent-encumbered but it is my current belief that all patent interest in the US on the subset of H.263 you need to play Flash video has expired. (This is mostly because Sorenson Spark is half-baked at best. For full-profile H.263, there's still a few patents on B-Frames and error handling modes that expire in a few months to a year out.)

In terms of copyright, I believe Adobe specifically granted permission for anyone to use their documentation to write Flash Player implementations back in 2009. That would cut off any pesky claims of API infringement (*thanks* Oracle). Several other Flash Player technologies such as AVM2 were released as Free Software as Adobe and Mozilla were planning to make AS3 the next version of JavaScript (seriously, look it up, the story of ES4/JS2 is a wild ride). So that would further limit any claims Adobe might make. Kmeisthax (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

In all the sources I read, none covered the legal situation of Ruffle nor Flash, so I don't think it makes sense to include the legal status in the article, aside from Ruffle being free software. Legoktm (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed

Hi @Veverve, thanks for working on the article! I have a question about this edit, specifically, which part of that sentence do you think needs a citation? The fact that it's written in Rust with a desktop/web clients is already mentioned in the "Features" section, and the fact that Fluster turned into ruffle is what citation #14 is for. If you can clarify that I'll find a source for whatever is missing. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Legoktm: in this case, everything should be supported by inline references. I have done the necessaru changes, thanks to your input. Veverve (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)