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 |