This looks like a cooperation between Google and Adobe, but I don't know of any official statement...
Adobe only says "Google provides ...", not that it has been created or is owned by Google.
...If Adobe sent the plugin to the RPF they know what they are doing. If Google provides it (as part of Chrome OS, for example), they know what they are doing. A lot of fuss about nothing.
You are assuming without any factual basis to back up what you are saying, and your conclusion is debatable.
1. When it comes down to it, Google does not support the platform, and has in fact actively discontinued support for it.
2. Adobe Flash does not support the linux platform with Flash above v1.12
3. Google's Pepper Flash Is proprietary, and is solely maintained by Google for use with their Chrome/Chromium browser. To my knowledge, Adobe has no rights to the Google Pepper Flash version. and cannot dictate licensing agreements for the proprietary non-free closed source version of the Pepper Flash software. There is a reason why libpepflashplayer.so
is non-free and closed source software, whereas Adobe flash (libflashplayer.so
) is open source software.
Pepper Flash Player is maintained by Google, and is newer than Adobe Flash Player. Adobe currently still provides security fixes for Adobe Flash Player. Google provides newer features in Pepper Flash Player. Pepper Flash Player can currently only be used with Chromium (and with Chrome).
4. If Adobe license use of Adobe Flash to the Foundation, then that is what they are supposed to use (libflashplayer.so), The open source Adobe Flash linux platform version does not exceed v1.12. Chromium browser is open source. Pepperflash is not open source.
5. Because Chromium/Chrome browser is not supported on this linux armhf platform, it requires modification to make it work. That is fine I suspect, as Chromium browser is open source software, and is freely distributable. The same cannot be said for modifying the Pepperflash software to work on a platform that is unsupported.
Non-free means non-free. proprietary closed source means proprietary closed source.
You cannot justify modification and use of closed source non-free software to work on an unsupported linux based armhf platform without an explicit licensing agreement. By most laws, this licensing agreement must be available and view-able in the files- It is not because there probably is no non-free closed source licensing terms for the Foundation to modify/use the software in the way in which they are doing it is my guess. Google owns all rights of Use for Pepper Flash, Not Adobe.
Google does not support the Foundation's platform, and being that Pepperflash is closed source, non-free, it suggests that there is no implied permission to modify and/or alter the non-free, proprietary closed source software that belongs to Google.