| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 05:14:16PM -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Lars Wendler wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Am Mittwoch 16 Juni 2010, 14:45:21 schrieb Angelo Arrifano: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> On 16-06-2010 14:40, Jim Ramsay wrote: |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn<chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 13 |
>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>>>> One notable section is 7.6 in which Adobe reserves the right to |
| 15 |
>>>>>> download and install additional Content Protection software on the |
| 16 |
>>>>>> user's PC. |
| 17 |
>>>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>>> Not like anyone will actually *read* the license before adding it to |
| 20 |
>>>>> their accept group, but if they did this would indeed be an important |
| 21 |
>>>>> thing of which users should be aware. |
| 22 |
>>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>>> |
| 24 |
>>>> I defend it is our job to warn users about this kind of details. To me |
| 25 |
>>>> it sounds that a einfo at post-build phase would do the job, what do you |
| 26 |
>>>> guys think? |
| 27 |
>>>> |
| 28 |
>>>> |
| 29 |
>>> Definitely yes! This is a very dangerous snippet in Adobe's license which |
| 30 |
>>> should be pretty clearly pointed at to every user. |
| 31 |
>>> |
| 32 |
>>> |
| 33 |
>>> |
| 34 |
>> Could that also include a alternative to adobe? If there is one. |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
> The place to advocate free alternatives (or upstreams that are |
| 37 |
> nonsuck) isn't in einfo messages in ebuilds, it's on folks blogs or at |
| 38 |
> best in metadata.xml... einfo should be "this is the things to watch |
| 39 |
> for in using this/setting it up" not "these guys are evil, use one of |
| 40 |
> the free alternatives!". |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Grok? |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> ~harring |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I was thinking more along the lines of "the end user license has changed |
| 48 |
substantially for this package. If you don't accept the changes and want |
| 49 |
a alternative package, you can look into xyz or wyz." Nothing about |
| 50 |
being evil, just information. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
This way the user knows it has changed, they can read it and then if |
| 53 |
they have problems with it, they can then use something else. I have all |
| 54 |
licenses accepted in my make.conf, as does another poster in this |
| 55 |
thread, but I do hope that I would be notified if a package is going to |
| 56 |
install or otherwise change my system. I'm using Gentoo because I DON'T |
| 57 |
want things installed that I don't know about. After all, the first line |
| 58 |
of defense in open source distros is the developers. Just think, would |
| 59 |
your reaction be different if it explicitly said it was going to install |
| 60 |
spyware? After all, no one knows what it may install and then do. Some |
| 61 |
users may decide they don't want to take that chance if they know about |
| 62 |
it. Right now, they may not even know about it. If I wasn't subscribed |
| 63 |
here, I wouldn't either. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Just my thoughts. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Dale |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
:-) :-) |
Archives