| 1 |
2009/10/5 Jesús Guerrero <i92guboj@×××××.es>: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:42:22 +0100, Stroller |
| 3 |
> <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 5 Oct 2009, at 15:18, Jesús Guerrero wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I actually find this a little surprising. I might have thought that |
| 7 |
>> the devs might have separated the decryption and playback components: |
| 8 |
>> one could imagine it being legal to play back a region 0 DVD in some |
| 9 |
>> territories, but not to install or operate encryption "circumvention" |
| 10 |
>> software. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Yes, I agree, USE flags are a bit fuzzy. Even if legality wasn't a |
| 13 |
> problem, still it's not accurate to use such a name for an use flag that |
| 14 |
> adds support for decryption. It's even funnier when you realize that you |
| 15 |
> don't even need to enable it to play all the dvd's (only encrypted ones). |
| 16 |
> In such cases, the best thing is to fill an enhancement bug and hope for |
| 17 |
> the best. I might do that later if I manager to remember it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yeah, I'm agreeing about this notion. Particularly with the legality |
| 20 |
issues, there might be some desire to separate watching unencrypted |
| 21 |
DVDs from encryption. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I suppose if the enhancement bug is filed, a suggested name for the |
| 24 |
new USE flag is something like dvd-crypto. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Regards, |
| 27 |
daid |
Archives