[gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Samuli Suominen]

Missed something before.. But after reading this it leads me to
conclusion nero-3.0.0.0 needs RESTRICT="fetch"? Would someone be kind
enough to take a look for me to get a second opinion as it might be out
of context / I'm overlooking something. Now, it's RESTRICT="mirror".

Also, I failed to see such ACCEPT button in their homepage.. but I see
one after starting it(!).

${PORTDIR/licenses/Nero

<snip>

B.BY INSTALLING THE DOWNLOADED SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND
BY THE TER MS OF THIS AGREEMENT BY MEANS OF CLICKING THE “ACCEPT”
BUTTON ON THE WEBSITE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY UNINSTALL AND DELETE THE SOFTWARE AND ALL THE
ACCOMPANYING ITEMS (INCLUDING DOCUMENTATION OR MANUALS).

</snip>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[expose]

Am Freitag, 6. Juli 2007 14:09 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
> Missed something before.. But after reading this it leads me to
> conclusion nero-3.0.0.0 needs RESTRICT="fetch"? Would someone be kind
> enough to take a look for me to get a second opinion as it might be out
> of context / I'm overlooking something. Now, it's RESTRICT="mirror".
>
> Also, I failed to see such ACCEPT button in their homepage.. but I see
> one after starting it(!).
>
> ${PORTDIR/licenses/Nero
>
> <snip>
>
> B.BY INSTALLING THE DOWNLOADED SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND
> BY THE TER MS OF THIS AGREEMENT BY MEANS OF CLICKING THE “ACCEPT”
> BUTTON ON THE WEBSITE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
> AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY UNINSTALL AND DELETE THE SOFTWARE AND ALL THE
> ACCOMPANYING ITEMS (INCLUDING DOCUMENTATION OR MANUALS).
>
> </snip>

Reads confusing: First accept the license via the (non-existent) 
Website-Button in order to download at all, but then uninstall, if you 
disagree?!
Looks like they changed the behaviour of their website/software but adopted 
the license text in an confusing way.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1769 bytes --]

Samuli Suominen napsal(a):
> Missed something before.. But after reading this it leads me to
> conclusion nero-3.0.0.0 needs RESTRICT="fetch"? Would someone be kind
> enough to take a look for me to get a second opinion as it might be out
> of context / I'm overlooking something. Now, it's RESTRICT="mirror".
> 
> Also, I failed to see such ACCEPT button in their homepage.. but I see
> one after starting it(!).

Why would you need RESTRICT=fetch for stuff that displays license on
runtime and requires clicking on Accept there? You can as well remove
the package altogether because the 'trial version' is not downloadable
via their website, there's no license to click on and an attempt to
download the 'update version' (whatever it is) goes like this:


Could not find an appropriate hxplay or realplay in the system path to
use as an embedded player.

Click OK.

Could not find an appropriate hxplay or realplay in the system path to
use as an embedded player.

Click OK.

426 Transfer aborted. Data connection closed.

Click OK, get redirected to FTP site. Nothing happens. Follow the advice
and click 'click here' link.

Could not find an appropriate hxplay or realplay in the system path to
use as an embedded player.

Click OK.

Could not find an appropriate hxplay or realplay in the system path to
use as an embedded player.

Click OK.

426 Transfer aborted. Data connection closed.

Stare on a blank page until you fall asleep.


Well done, Nero. :P


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Harald van Dijk]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 03:09:23PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Missed something before.. But after reading this it leads me to
> conclusion nero-3.0.0.0 needs RESTRICT="fetch"? Would someone be kind
> enough to take a look for me to get a second opinion as it might be out
> of context / I'm overlooking something. Now, it's RESTRICT="mirror".

It doesn't need RESTRICT=fetch; there is no assumption that you agree to
the license just by downloading the software. Installing it, however,
does apparently require acceptance of the license, so eutils.eclass's
check_license function should probably be used.

> Also, I failed to see such ACCEPT button in their homepage.. but I see
> one after starting it(!).
> 
> ${PORTDIR/licenses/Nero
> 
> <snip>
> 
> B.BY INSTALLING THE DOWNLOADED SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND
> BY THE TER MS OF THIS AGREEMENT BY MEANS OF CLICKING THE “ACCEPT”
> BUTTON ON THE WEBSITE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
> AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY UNINSTALL AND DELETE THE SOFTWARE AND ALL THE
> ACCOMPANYING ITEMS (INCLUDING DOCUMENTATION OR MANUALS).
> 
> </snip>
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 457 bytes --]

Harald van Dijk napsal(a):
> so eutils.eclass's check_license function should probably be used.

Broken until Bug 17367 is implemented. It's enough that loads of games
kill non-interactivity.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 420 bytes --]

On Friday 06 July 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Harald van Dijk napsal(a):
> > so eutils.eclass's check_license function should probably be used.
>
> Broken until Bug 17367 is implemented.

the same exact thing could be said for everything using `built_with_use`

> It's enough that loads of games kill non-interactivity.

hmm, games prompting at install or no game ebuilds at all ... that's a no 
brainer
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 763 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> On Friday 06 July 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Harald van Dijk napsal(a):
>>> so eutils.eclass's check_license function should probably be used.
>> Broken until Bug 17367 is implemented.
> 
> the same exact thing could be said for everything using `built_with_use`

This check in this particular ebuild won't add anything useful; will
just bug users redundantly to accept a license which they'll have to
accept once again on the first run. Kinda miss the point here.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Harald van Dijk]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 07:40:47PM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> > On Friday 06 July 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> Harald van Dijk napsal(a):
> >>> so eutils.eclass's check_license function should probably be used.
> >> Broken until Bug 17367 is implemented.
> > 
> > the same exact thing could be said for everything using `built_with_use`
> 
> This check in this particular ebuild won't add anything useful; will
> just bug users redundantly to accept a license which they'll have to
> accept once again on the first run. Kinda miss the point here.

And what if they decide they don't accept the license on the first run?
They'll already have installed the software, which requires acceptance
of the license. Please don't ignore silly license requirements just
because it's convenient.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 406 bytes --]

Harald van Dijk napsal(a):
> And what if they decide they don't accept the license on the first run?

Then the software won't run, very easy.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Torsten Rehn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 364 bytes --]

On Friday 06 July 2007 19:56, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> And what if they decide they don't accept the license on the first run?
> They'll already have installed the software, which requires acceptance
> of the license.

No violation here: "[...] IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY UNINSTALL AND DELETE THE SOFTWARE [...]"

cheers

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Harald van Dijk]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 08:08:13PM +0200, Torsten Rehn wrote:
> On Friday 06 July 2007 19:56, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > And what if they decide they don't accept the license on the first run?
> > They'll already have installed the software, which requires acceptance
> > of the license.
> 
> No violation here: "[...] IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
> AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY UNINSTALL AND DELETE THE SOFTWARE [...]"

That only means uninstalling and deleting the software means you won't
be in further violation of the license, I believe, but I would not be
entirely surprised if your interpretation turns out correct.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Nero-3.0.0.0 license needs RESTRICT="fetch" ?

[Richard Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1635 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 08:08:13PM +0200, Torsten Rehn wrote:
>> On Friday 06 July 2007 19:56, Harald van Dijk wrote:
>>> And what if they decide they don't accept the license on the first run?
>>> They'll already have installed the software, which requires acceptance
>>> of the license.
>> No violation here: "[...] IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS
>> AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY UNINSTALL AND DELETE THE SOFTWARE [...]"
> 
> That only means uninstalling and deleting the software means you won't
> be in further violation of the license, I believe, but I would not be
> entirely surprised if your interpretation turns out correct.

Considering that it is of questionable legality to require the
acceptance of a license to move files from one place to another on your
computer, I'd think that having only one acceptance instead of two would
be appropriate.

My understanding is that you only need a license to do something that
you're otherwise not allowed to do - such as distribute a copyrighted
file.  Once you've downloaded the file you've already copied it - now
you're just moving it from directory A to B.

But in any case the authors already have a prompt in their software - I
don't think it is necessary to make the build interactive to nag people
again... :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGjvzcG4/rWKZmVWkRAkyDAJ9+pHMEEPredsg8sDC+6YUIv7FOVACgj7e7
pilr915pjy41W7Exilt3Prc=
=9+5H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 4101 bytes --]