Dale schrieb:
>>>>> One notable section is 7.6 in which Adobe reserves the right to
>>>>> download and install additional Content Protection software on the
>>>>> user's PC.
>>>> Not like anyone will actually *read* the license before adding it to
>>>> their accept group, but if they did this would indeed be an important
>>>> thing of which users should be aware.
>>> I defend it is our job to warn users about this kind of details. To me
>>> it sounds that a einfo at post-build phase would do the job, what do 
>>> you
>>> guys think?

Though I am not opposed to adding a warning, I think the license mask is 
sufficient. If users demonstrate their indifference by setting 
ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" or adding AdobeFlash-10.1 without reading the 
license, then I somehow doubt that elog messages will have an effect.
>> Definitely yes! This is a very dangerous snippet in Adobe's license 
>> which
>> should be pretty clearly pointed at to every user.
>>
>
> Could that also include a alternative to adobe?  If there is one.

There are three open-source flash browser plugins in portage:
- swfdec: development seems to have stalled
- gnash: I have received mixed reports about the stability of the 
current version. The next release will include VA-API support and other 
improvements.
- lightspark: a recent effort which is in its early stages and still 
incomplete in many ways (eg. audio support is planned for 0.4.2)

None of them I consider good enough to replace adobe-flash for the 
average user.


Regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn