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