Domen Kožar <do...@dev.si> said: > This should probably be updated: > > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-amd64-faq.xml#flash
Thanks for noticing this. Everybodies input makes Gentoo a great place to be! Now, if you want that extra chocolate chip cookie, please head over to https://bugs.gentoo.org and report the issue there. ;-) (remember to search for duplicates first). Thanks kind regards Thilo > > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 15:58 +0200, Angelo Arrifano wrote: > > On 18-06-2010 12:16, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Lars Wendler <polynomial- c...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > >> 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!". > > > > Why? You are running a free and opensource operating system, what's > > wrong suggesting *other* free and opensource alternatives? You are > > just providing the user a choice, not to actually oblige him to > > install anything. > > > > Also, I'm pretty sure seeing nvidia-drivers suggesting the use of the > > kernel driver when using the hardened profile. > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > I will ignore the technical portion where basically any binary on > > > your system; even binaries you compiled yourself have the ability > > > to 'install things you do not like' when run as root (and > > > sometimes when run as a normal user as well.) > > > > For all the years running Linux, I never found that case. > > > > > The real meat here is that you want Gentoo to take some kind of > > > stand on particular licensing terms. I don't think this is a good > > > precedent[0] to set for our users. It presumes we will > > > essentially read the license in its entirety and inform users of > > > the parts that we think are 'scary.'[1] The user is the person > > > who is installing and running the software. The user is the > > > person who should be reading and agreeing with any licensing terms > > > lest they find the teams unappealing. I don't find it > > > unreasonable to implement a tool as Duncan suggested because it is > > > not a judgement but a statement of fact. "The license for app/foo > > > has changed from X to Y. You should review the changes > > > accordingly by running <blah>" > > > > I'm the person who initially proposed warning users on elog. The > > initial proposal only states about: > > 1) A warning about change of licensing terms. > > 2) A warning that "additional Content Protection software" might be > > installed without users consent. > > > > In fact, portage already warns the users about bad coding practices, > > install of executables with runtime text relocations, etc.. How is > > this different? > > If me, as a user, didn't know about such detail (who reads software > > license agreements anyway?) and someday I hypothetically find a > > executable running without my permission as my user account and I'm > > able to associate it with Adobe's flash, I would be pissed off to no > > extent. And guess what? First thing I would *blame* is flash > > maintainers. I expect package maintainers to be more familiar with > > the packages they maintain than me. As consequence, I expect them to > > advice me about non-obvious details on those packages. At least > > that's what I try to do on the packages I maintain. > > GNU/Linux is all about choice. Stating, during install, that a > > package might later install additional stuff will just provide a > > choice to the user, not conditioning it. > > > > Regards, > > - Angelo > > > > > [0] There is an existing precedent for reading the license and > > > ensuring Gentoo itself is not violating the license by distributing > > > said software. Gentoo takes measures to reduce its own liability > > > in case a lawsuit arises; however this is a pretty narrow case. > > > [1] The other bad part here is that 'scary' is itself a judgement > > > call about licensing terms. I do not want to have arguments with > > > users about which terms I should have to warn them about versus > > > not. Users should (ideally) be reading the software licenses for > > > software they choose to use. > > > > > > -A > > > > > >>> Grok? > > >>> > > >>> ~harring > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) > > >> Gentoo developer and bug-wrangler
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
