From: Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:08:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201006181108.29193.polynomial-c@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100618014229.GA12490@hrair>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1903 bytes --]
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<chithanh@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
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-18 9:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-14 21:20 [gentoo-dev] Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
2010-06-16 12:40 ` Jim Ramsay
2010-06-16 12:45 ` Angelo Arrifano
2010-06-17 22:06 ` Lars Wendler
2010-06-17 22:14 ` Dale
2010-06-17 22:37 ` Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
2010-06-17 23:20 ` Lars Wendler
2010-06-18 1:42 ` Brian Harring
2010-06-18 6:10 ` Dale
2010-06-18 9:08 ` Lars Wendler [this message]
2010-06-18 10:16 ` Alec Warner
2010-06-18 13:58 ` Angelo Arrifano
2010-06-18 17:56 ` Brian Harring
2010-06-19 2:29 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2010-06-23 18:41 ` [gentoo-dev] " Domen Kožar
2010-06-24 5:59 ` Thilo Bangert
2010-06-19 2:25 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201006181108.29193.polynomial-c@gentoo.org \
--to=polynomial-c@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox