1 |
Am Freitag 18 Juni 2010, 00:37:29 schrieb Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn: |
2 |
> Dale schrieb: |
3 |
> >>>>> One notable section is 7.6 in which Adobe reserves the right to |
4 |
> >>>>> download and install additional Content Protection software on the |
5 |
> >>>>> user's PC. |
6 |
> >>>> |
7 |
> >>>> Not like anyone will actually *read* the license before adding it to |
8 |
> >>>> their accept group, but if they did this would indeed be an important |
9 |
> >>>> thing of which users should be aware. |
10 |
> >>> |
11 |
> >>> I defend it is our job to warn users about this kind of details. To me |
12 |
> >>> it sounds that a einfo at post-build phase would do the job, what do |
13 |
> >>> you |
14 |
> >>> guys think? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Though I am not opposed to adding a warning, I think the license mask is |
17 |
> sufficient. If users demonstrate their indifference by setting |
18 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" or adding AdobeFlash-10.1 without reading the |
19 |
> license, then I somehow doubt that elog messages will have an effect. |
20 |
|
21 |
Maybe I'm quite alone with that but I have ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" because I hate |
22 |
to edit my make.conf each time I try to emerge a package with yet another |
23 |
license that is missing in the variable. But I still watch for elog messages |
24 |
carefully after each merge. |
25 |
|
26 |
> >> Definitely yes! This is a very dangerous snippet in Adobe's license |
27 |
> >> which |
28 |
> >> should be pretty clearly pointed at to every user. |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > Could that also include a alternative to adobe? If there is one. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> There are three open-source flash browser plugins in portage: |
33 |
> - swfdec: development seems to have stalled |
34 |
> - gnash: I have received mixed reports about the stability of the |
35 |
> current version. The next release will include VA-API support and other |
36 |
> improvements. |
37 |
> - lightspark: a recent effort which is in its early stages and still |
38 |
> incomplete in many ways (eg. audio support is planned for 0.4.2) |
39 |
> |
40 |
> None of them I consider good enough to replace adobe-flash for the |
41 |
> average user. |
42 |
|
43 |
Unfortunately yes. Especially now that Adobe fails to provide x86_64 users a |
44 |
non-vulnerable plugin I'd very much prefer to use an open-source replacement |
45 |
that for sure would be fixed much faster in case it's affected by some security |
46 |
vulnerability as well. |
47 |
One can only hope that flash finally vanishes from WWW now that HTML5 could |
48 |
become a good alternative... |
49 |
|
50 |
> Regards, |
51 |
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) |
55 |
Gentoo developer and bug-wrangler |