Dale schrieb:
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?
Though I am not opposed to adding a warning, I think the license mask is
sufficient. If users demonstrate their indifference by setting
ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" or adding AdobeFlash-10.1 without reading the
license, then I somehow doubt that elog messages will have an effect.
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.
There are three open-source flash browser plugins in portage:
- swfdec: development seems to have stalled
- gnash: I have received mixed reports about the stability of the
current version. The next release will include VA-API support and other
improvements.
- lightspark: a recent effort which is in its early stages and still
incomplete in many ways (eg. audio support is planned for 0.4.2)
None of them I consider good enough to replace adobe-flash for the
average user.
Regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
