I would like to create a custom Mandrake LiveCD, but would like to include
Flash Player as well as Mozilla Firefox, however I want to know if there would
be any problem if I want to include Macromedia Flash Player.

I ask because I have seen that several LiveCD distros which does not include
Flash Player and I was wondering if there is any legal (copyright) problem
in this.

Yep. The Flash Player copyright prohibits redistribution in that way. I was reading an article recently where someone wanted to set up a lab of computers using Knoppix CDs and have flash installed, so he got around it by running a shell script to install flash at boot time.

*googles*
Here's the article on the web: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7127

I really enjoyed that article, so I'm glad that point stuck with me.

I skimmed through the Flash Player license. The conditions don't seem impossible to fulfil. You just have to follow the licensing procedure and place some copyright notices and logo buttons here and there. As I understand it, it doesn't cost anything. Linux distros, of course, won't include Flash Player because it's not free software. I believe that, in this case, the GPL is a bigger "obstacle" than the Flash license.

Simon

I don't the GPL is an obstacle. It's perfectly OK (and done by about 75% of the distributions to include non-free (speech) software in a distribution. Bundling it on the same CD is something specifically addressed by the GPL and the GPL Faq:

Yes, bundling on the same CD is possible. What I've seen so far is that some distros include a special disk just for non-free software. These disks can't be downloaded as ISOs, they are only in the commercial boxed sets. I haven't used these but I assume that the user has to install the non-free stuff separately. These measures should make it certain that the free stuff isn't "contaminated", i.e. combined with the non-free stuff.

However, Matir, you should read the whole section you quoted. It leaves things ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

Even Richard Stallman isn't sure.

Based on this, you could argue that the Flash plugin and Firefox do indeed form a combined program. They are linked together and exchange complex data structures.

Furthermore, this FAQ is only secondary license text. The only thing that actually matters is GPL itself and it speaks vaguely of whole works and identifiable sections. The promise that bundled disks are possible is a heavy interpretation. You might argue that it's the "spirit of the law" though. But I don't know how well the parts must be separated on the disk and during installation and use. It would probably be best to ask FSF (about this specific situation.)

Agreed. HOWEVER... Clearly use of Flash and Firefox in general is acceptable (or we're all in a world of trouble). Further, Firefox is NOT GPL. (It's Mozilla Public License).

In any case, the point of putting it on the same media applies. I am not aware of any free-distribution-but-not-with-other-things licenses. I think, given a few (somewhat restrictive) conditions Macromedia imposes, it COULD be distributed together. I also think the option used by those in the LinuxJournal article is viable for computers that will have an internet connection at boot. (Only once in a while have I seen a situation with flash NOT on a website, and therefore could need the player without an internet connection).

Correction, Firefox is multi-licensed. And how is MPL any clearer on this bundling issue? Use of Flash and Firefox together may be perfectly OK, but the way they are used may affect the way they can be legally distributed. Please show me the sentences in the licenses that allow distributing on CD with non-free software; I'm interested. Remember that distributors don't have any rights other than those explicitly stated. That's the point of copyright.

From Mozilla Relicensing FAQ: Kind of off-putting.

Actually, so long as a distributor is able to comply with all terms of the license, they are free to distribute it however they want. The GPL specifically discusses "mere aggregation", but in the FAQ states that "we believe that's how it would be anyway". IANAL, but this is just my intepretation of those licenses.

An important consideration is whether the CD is a work in the copyright sense or not. A Linux distro is more likely than a mere program compilation to be a "work". This concept implies originality and creativity. Another thing is whether the programs and modules are parts of the work or does the work consist only of the organization of the data (plus the original parts). Not easy issues.

Even if it is a work of its own, how does that change things? The software is STILL not being linked together.

What, not linked together? The Flash plugin is a shared library (notice the filename extension ".so") and it is certainly linked with Firefox. It's not an independent program.

I realize that. But my original point was this: if the flash player is legal to install and use with firefox, then the GPL does not prohibit it being included on the same CD. The flash license might, but the GPL (and MPL) does not.

When you are using something on your computer, you are not distributing it. If you want to burn something on a CR-ROM for your own private use, go ahead, no one's stopping you. When you give that disk to someone else, to use or what ever, you are distributing it. GPL (or any similar license) doesn't dictate how you can or cannot use a program, it is not its function. It sets the rules under which you can distribute a program.