У пон, 27. 08 2012. у 19:21 +0200, Zygmunt Krynicki пише: > If we offer both the "protected", click through, EULA, downloads and the > tools to download them without seeing any license then I cannot see how > this is any more legally fine than just ignoring the whole damn mess.
The scripts have an explicit "yes, I agree to the license" step in them. We are making it even more explicit very soon now (that's why it's in "tests" until we make it even "stronger" and have it display the license unconditionally and prompt the user before the download begins). For whitelisting, our general approach is to simply have a hard-coded list of IPs internal to Linaro that can access downloads without any license restrictions, and if a Linaro box has a static IP, we'd gladly add any of them to the whitelist. None of the user facing code we provide can download anything without the explicit license acceptance. FWIW, that's why linaro-fetch-image cannot download protected images still: we haven't provided the license acceptance functionality. However, the way we provide click through is not hidden. No matter how we implement this, sufficiently determined users will be able to work around it, and the tools to do that are widely available (firebug, webkit inspector will tell you all you need to know). It was determined by member companies that this was the right balance between making life harder for users and satisfying lawyers. We can always move more in one or the other direction (eg. by insisting on captcha-like mechanism to make life harder for users), but the point is simple: licensing still applies as long as you need to go out of your way to circumvent it. I believe that using our test code is exactly that, just like using firebug/inspector would be. Cheers, Danilo _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
