From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OPNip-0007bj-PO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:38:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A36DE0CF5; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:38:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98CF8E0C9A for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:37:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.58] (e178091181.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.91.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3D21B4020 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:37:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4C1AA3A9.2040204@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:37:29 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100409 Gentoo/2.0.4-r1 SeaMonkey/2.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding AdobeFlash-10{,.1} licenses to EULA group References: <4C169D32.5080706@gentoo.org> <20100616084022.2f3c84fe@vrm378-02.vrm378.am.mot.com> <4C18C761.5080909@gentoo.org> <201006180006.53669.polynomial-c@gentoo.org> <4C1A9E38.8050206@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C1A9E38.8050206@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 2bea2136-598b-4e54-9c27-234062e95575 X-Archives-Hash: 1d697bc36e5ffaa53b643d11debffcd8 Dale schrieb: >>>>> 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 importan= t >>>> thing of which users should be aware. >>> I defend it is our job to warn users about this kind of details. To m= e >>> it sounds that a einfo at post-build phase would do the job, what do=20 >>> you >>> guys think? Though I am not opposed to adding a warning, I think the license mask is=20 sufficient. If users demonstrate their indifference by setting=20 ACCEPT_LICENSE=3D"*" or adding AdobeFlash-10.1 without reading the=20 license, then I somehow doubt that elog messages will have an effect. >> Definitely yes! This is a very dangerous snippet in Adobe's license=20 >> which >> should be pretty clearly pointed at to every user. >> > > Could that also include a alternative to adobe? If there is one. There are three open-source flash browser plugins in portage: - swfdec: development seems to have stalled - gnash: I have received mixed reports about the stability of the=20 current version. The next release will include VA-API support and other=20 improvements. - lightspark: a recent effort which is in its early stages and still=20 incomplete in many ways (eg. audio support is planned for 0.4.2) None of them I consider good enough to replace adobe-flash for the=20 average user. Regards, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n