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<chith...@gentoo.org> 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
