| 1 |
Dale schrieb: |
| 2 |
>>>>> One notable section is 7.6 in which Adobe reserves the right to |
| 3 |
>>>>> download and install additional Content Protection software on the |
| 4 |
>>>>> user's PC. |
| 5 |
>>>> Not like anyone will actually *read* the license before adding it to |
| 6 |
>>>> their accept group, but if they did this would indeed be an important |
| 7 |
>>>> thing of which users should be aware. |
| 8 |
>>> I defend it is our job to warn users about this kind of details. To me |
| 9 |
>>> it sounds that a einfo at post-build phase would do the job, what do |
| 10 |
>>> you |
| 11 |
>>> guys think? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Though I am not opposed to adding a warning, I think the license mask is |
| 14 |
sufficient. If users demonstrate their indifference by setting |
| 15 |
ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" or adding AdobeFlash-10.1 without reading the |
| 16 |
license, then I somehow doubt that elog messages will have an effect. |
| 17 |
>> Definitely yes! This is a very dangerous snippet in Adobe's license |
| 18 |
>> which |
| 19 |
>> should be pretty clearly pointed at to every user. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Could that also include a alternative to adobe? If there is one. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
There are three open-source flash browser plugins in portage: |
| 25 |
- swfdec: development seems to have stalled |
| 26 |
- gnash: I have received mixed reports about the stability of the |
| 27 |
current version. The next release will include VA-API support and other |
| 28 |
improvements. |
| 29 |
- lightspark: a recent effort which is in its early stages and still |
| 30 |
incomplete in many ways (eg. audio support is planned for 0.4.2) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
None of them I consider good enough to replace adobe-flash for the |
| 33 |
average user. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Regards, |
| 37 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives