Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@g.o>
Subject: Re: Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:08:23 +0200
Am Freitag 18 Juni 2010, 03:42:29 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 05:14:16PM -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Lars Wendler wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch 16 Juni 2010, 14:45:21 schrieb Angelo Arrifano:
> > >> On 16-06-2010 14:40, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > >>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn<chithanh@g.o>  wrote:
> > >>>> 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?
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> The place to advocate free alternatives (or upstreams that are
> nonsuck) isn't in einfo messages in ebuilds, it's on folks blogs or at
> best in metadata.xml... einfo should be "this is the things to watch
> for in using this/setting it up" not "these guys are evil, use one of
> the free alternatives!".

Maybe I expressed myself a bit misinterpretative. I don't want to request an 
elog message telling users about alternative packages. But in my opinion an 
elog message pointing at the bald-faced parts of Adobe's license should be 
added. These parts about allowing Adobe to install further content protection 
software is just too dangerous in my opinion.

> Grok?
> 
> ~harring

-- 
Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C)
Gentoo developer and bug-wrangler

Attachment:
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)
Replies:
Re: Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
-- Alec Warner
References:
Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
-- Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
-- Dale
Re: Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
-- Brian Harring
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
Next by thread:
Re: Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
Previous by date:
Re: Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
Next by date:
Re: Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.