| 1 |
Lars Wendler wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Mittwoch 16 Juni 2010, 14:45:21 schrieb Angelo Arrifano: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 16-06-2010 14:40, Jim Ramsay wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn<chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> I propose that this license be added to the EULA group. The previous |
| 9 |
>>>> AdobeFlash-10 license is similar in this regard, and could possibly |
| 10 |
>>>> also be added to that group. |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>> Agreed, on both points, and done. Thanks for finding and airing this |
| 13 |
>>> issue! |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> One notable section is 7.6 in which Adobe reserves the right to |
| 17 |
>>>> download and install additional Content Protection software on the |
| 18 |
>>>> user's PC. |
| 19 |
>>>> |
| 20 |
>>> Not like anyone will actually *read* the license before adding it to |
| 21 |
>>> their accept group, but if they did this would indeed be an important |
| 22 |
>>> thing of which users should be aware. |
| 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 |
> Definitely yes! This is a very dangerous snippet in Adobe's license which |
| 29 |
> should be pretty clearly pointed at to every user. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Could that also include a alternative to adobe? If there is one. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Dale |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
:-) :-) |
Archives