I believe some people here mixing speed with bacon(tocino con la velocidad).
That piece of software is protected by copyright you say. But when its ready are they planning on selling it? Or will it be available for everybody for free? If that is the case, how can it be considered stealing? If it was not free (gratis) it would be totally different.

Facebook video, Vimeo, and anybody else that's made the jump to FP 10.x.x.x - some of it works because it's not been recompiled to take advantage of the Flash Player 10.1 features via the Flash switcher app that fools the website to think it's a higher version than it's not.

But the moment those videos (*.flv) and sites (*.swf) are published using FP 10.1 standard effects and/or features, then you will need a proper FP 10.1 plugin.

2advanced... the current version is still set to run on FP 8, if I remember correctly. FP 9 at the most.

It isn't free. It's licensed... by Nokia. Nokia pays that license for you.

Just like the browser/OS people pay for H.264 encoding for you too.

more pages and more pages and people who have the file not published it and Texas Instruments did not send the email with the file . I sent many requests the last week and this week and nothing

Who do you mean when you write "they"?

The Flash plug-in Texas Instruments makes available to developers working on devices based on TI A8-based devices is ready. It is evaluation software, made for developers working on projects that utilize appropriate OMAP chips so those developers can test the performance of Flash on the systems they're building.

This does not imply TI has any intention of releasing the plug-in freely to the world at large. It seems likely that for such large scale distribution Adobe would demand different licensing, and a larger check, than for limited distribution, evaluation software.

The fact that Texas Instruments has a Linux-on-OMAP Flash 10.1 plug-in to distribute may not even mean that Adobe itself has that plug-in. There's been some indicators pointed out in this thread that Adobe (sometimes? always?) leaves Flash-on-ARM porting efforts to outside companies. It's possible that Texas Instruments paid licensing fees and developed the plug-in in-house or paid a third party to port the plug-in for them.

In any case, none of this implies Nokia has, and will be releasing, an updated Flash plug-in for Maemo 5 on the N900. It shows that Flash 10.1 on Maemo 5 is possible, but that was never in question.

Soo, isn't there any difference in speed with this new plugin to the one coming with N900? I thought that vector graphics were supposed to be hardware accelerated (through openvg?) in flash 10.1 for mobile devices.

this ti-version hasn't got hw acceleration, read the last 8 pages, someone has written an explanation why (or why he believes)

may anyone tell me whats the difference (under licensing/pirating aspects) between backporting flash 10.1 from meego and sharing the file from ti?

except backporting needs much more work (and the guy releasing it will get much more appreciation) and may be more unstable?

so everybody whining about whining pirates should first think wether he would have used backported flash player which is as much "stealing" or violating licensing laws as copying that file, because don't tell me that nokia will buy a maemo+meego licence, the libraries will just get licenced for meego.

I had thought that I could wait for an official release because MaeMaps was giving me access to google streetview after it stopped working in the direct access through the browser. But that's no longer true. I've asked for the TI version, being completely honest in the process. and didn't get it from them (so far). Still waiting patiently...

roffles at those lecturing at pirates here - I am sure no one uses PSFreedom or n900 emulators illegally and owns all of their games.

Wouldn't it be nice if the source to flash was leaked

Anyone know how Flash got ported to the iPad? Reverse engineering or emulating?