1 |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 05:14:16PM -0500, Dale wrote: |
2 |
> Lars Wendler wrote: |
3 |
> > Am Mittwoch 16 Juni 2010, 14:45:21 schrieb Angelo Arrifano: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> >> On 16-06-2010 14:40, Jim Ramsay wrote: |
6 |
> >> |
7 |
> >>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn<chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
> >>>> One notable section is 7.6 in which Adobe reserves the right to |
9 |
> >>>> download and install additional Content Protection software on the |
10 |
> >>>> user's PC. |
11 |
> >>>> |
12 |
> >>> Not like anyone will actually *read* the license before adding it to |
13 |
> >>> their accept group, but if they did this would indeed be an important |
14 |
> >>> thing of which users should be aware. |
15 |
> >>> |
16 |
> >> I defend it is our job to warn users about this kind of details. To me |
17 |
> >> it sounds that a einfo at post-build phase would do the job, what do you |
18 |
> >> guys think? |
19 |
> >> |
20 |
> > Definitely yes! This is a very dangerous snippet in Adobe's license which |
21 |
> > should be pretty clearly pointed at to every user. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Could that also include a alternative to adobe? If there is one. |
26 |
|
27 |
The place to advocate free alternatives (or upstreams that are |
28 |
nonsuck) isn't in einfo messages in ebuilds, it's on folks blogs or at |
29 |
best in metadata.xml... einfo should be "this is the things to watch |
30 |
for in using this/setting it up" not "these guys are evil, use one of |
31 |
the free alternatives!". |
32 |
|
33 |
Grok? |
34 |
|
35 |
~harring |