http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov <vascom2(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I am think "pepper-flash" name can be used because chromium-pepper-flash was created long before freshplayerplugin. widevinecdm-plugin not in the same package - it in subpackage. However I can move it to separate source package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kvolny(a)redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Patrick Griffis from comment #1) btw, Qupzilla (or any QtWebEngine browser?) should be able to use it too I haven't tested this yet as I'm not in the mood to install random .tar.gz cruft right now, however, it'd be nice if you'd make sure that the new package works out of the box with Qupzilla too (and that it makes precedence over the old Flash, if both are installed) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; --- Please install PepperFlash into one of these locations: http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtwebengine.git/tree/src/core/content_client_qt... and Widevine (which I think should really be a separate SRPM) into one of these locations: http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtwebengine.git/tree/src/core/content_client_qt... Otherwise, QtWebEngine will not find it. Unfortunately, the PepperFlash paths hardcode /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 and do not contain one path that is the same except for the libsuffix. (I think the assumption there is that people will only use the 64-bit version. The /usr/lib paths are intended for non-multilib distros.) So you would have to use completely different paths for the 32-bit and 64-bit plugin, or we will have to patch QtWebEngine. Your package is also missing: ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #5) ... You have to use a mechanism and install the binaries in an agnostic directory similar to adobe (npapi)flash-plugin (such as _libdir/pepper-flash-plugin). Then use trigger post to create a symlink on purpose once chromium / QtWebEngine / other package installation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #8 from Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #4) not the best place to discuss this, but ... do I read the code correctly that it does not include reading the path from configfile? hardcoding the paths to .cpp seems to me the worst possible practice ... WTH there is no make option for that at least, so distro-specific stuff can be defined at compile time? then we could have something like /usr/lib64/chromium-browser/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so -> /usr/lib64/all-browser-plugins/libpepflashplayer.so /usr/lib64/chromium/libwidevinecdmadapter.so -> /usr/lib64/all-browser-plugins/libwidevinecdmadapter.so which would make also packaging the plugins kinda easier, right? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dominik(a)greysector.net --- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; --- Sorry to cut your efforts short, but Google does not permit redistribution: https://www.google.pl/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/eula_text.html [...] 7.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement. [...] 9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing. Neither does Adobe, by the way: https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/legal/lic... [...] 3.3 Distribution. This license does not grant you the right to sublicense or distribute the Software. The only legal way is to prepare an lpf-style package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter(a)math.unl.edu --- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; --- Simply, if it cannot be legally redistributed, rpmfusion cannot include it (as-is). One option, use lpf, see also: https://github.com/rpmfusion/lpf-flash-plugin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #13 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; --- (In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #12) Exposing RPMFusion to legal action from Google or Adobe if we start redistributing their stuff without permission is far worse than the inconvenience of lpf. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #15 from Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #13) ok, why not to ask them? "... or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing." (ok, I've found some FAQ that states Widevine is not allowed in Chromium, so we can hardly expect it to be made available elsewhere, but in theory ... nothing is lost for asking :-)) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #17 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; --- The tar.gz flash_player_ppapi_linux.x86_64.tar.gz got an LGPLv3 text License and have an Readme file with this text "This product links to certain Linux system libraries licensed under LGPL" I don't know what it means (tips are welcome), but if still nonredistributable , I/we can make the lpf-pepper-flash , I like the lpf packages (skype and spotify). The biggest problem of lpf is that a normal user needs to be in pkg-build group , the author Alec Leamas ( https://github.com/leamas ) , try include that in scripts , when maybe was more simple just say please do: "sudo /usr/sbin/usermod -a -G pkg-build $USER" , BTW I found recently that we have same problem with VirtualBox, $USER needs be in vboxusers group ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #19 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; --- If you want to offer users a real RPM without LPF, the repository you are currently shipping the package in is really the only way to go (as they don't seem to care about license compliance at all, unlike RPM Fusion). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 Patrick Griffis <tingping(a)tingping.se&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tingping(a)tingping.se --- Comment #21 from Patrick Griffis <tingping(a)tingping.se&gt; --- (In reply to Sérgio Basto from comment #20) Their license says the use LGPLv3 libraries. The LGPL does not require software that links to it to be open source. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #23 from leigh scott <leigh123linux(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #22) UnitedRPMs are using fedora copr to do all there builds [leigh@main_pc Desktop]$ wget https://sourceforge.net/projects/unitedrpms/files/repository/x86_64/ffmpe... ;rpm -qp --info ffmpeg-3.1.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm |grep -i vendor --2016-10-10 11:06:11-- https://sourceforge.net/projects/unitedrpms/files/repository/x86_64/ffmpe... Resolving sourceforge.net (sourceforge.net)... 216.34.181.60 Connecting to sourceforge.net (sourceforge.net)|216.34.181.60|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: https://sourceforge.net/projects/unitedrpms/files/repository/x86_64/ffmpe... [following] --2016-10-10 11:06:12-- https://sourceforge.net/projects/unitedrpms/files/repository/x86_64/ffmpe... Connecting to sourceforge.net (sourceforge.net)|216.34.181.60|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/unitedrpms/repository/x86_64/ffm... [following] --2016-10-10 11:06:13-- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/unitedrpms/repository/x86_64/ffm... Resolving downloads.sourceforge.net (downloads.sourceforge.net)... 216.34.181.59 Connecting to downloads.sourceforge.net (downloads.sourceforge.net)|216.34.181.59|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Location: http://netcologne.dl.sourceforge.net/project/unitedrpms/repository/x86_64... [following] --2016-10-10 11:06:13-- http://netcologne.dl.sourceforge.net/project/unitedrpms/repository/x86_64... Resolving netcologne.dl.sourceforge.net (netcologne.dl.sourceforge.net)... 78.35.24.46, 2001:4dd0:1234:6::5f Connecting to netcologne.dl.sourceforge.net (netcologne.dl.sourceforge.net)|78.35.24.46|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1982658 (1.9M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: ‘ffmpeg-3.1.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm’ ffmpeg-3.1.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 100%[==================================================>] 1.89M 2.87MB/s in 0.7s 2016-10-10 11:06:14 (2.87 MB/s) - ‘ffmpeg-3.1.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm’ saved [1982658/1982658] warning: ffmpeg-3.1.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 5250aef3: NOKEY Vendor : Fedora Project COPR (paulcarroty/test) [leigh@main_pc Desktop]$ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #25 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; --- yeah, I already warn them, but I think I have to leave unitedrpms to not ruin my reputation . Anyway I will make lpf-pepper-flash, I'm planing split pepper-flash and libwidevinecdmadapter, maybe another lpf, lpf-widevine, since are 2 complete different software, I personally don't use/need widevine . This is in my todo list and can take some time, if someone want to do it please be my guess . Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #27 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; --- UnitedRPMs (ab)uses not only Copr, but also GitHub and SourceForge infrastructure, which are also US-based. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #29 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #28) My point is that it cannot be redistributed elsewhere than from adobe, unless on a warez website (or within a private repo). What I would expect it to have it packaged by adobe at some point. Until then, we can have a lpf package. So for now, our official documentation would be to install the archive manually. This would need to be documented in our wiki. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4286 --- Comment #31 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; --- more instruction for howto build lpf-pepper-flash: http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-users/2016-October/001035.... http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-users/2016-October/001040.... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.