WineHQ should discourage the use of cracks
Reece Dunn
msclrhd at googlemail.com
Tue Mar 4 09:25:56 CST 2008
On 04/03/2008, Zachary Goldberg <zgold550 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Vit Hrachovy <vit.hrachovy at sandbox.cz> wrote:
> > My priority is SW FUNCTIONALITY.
> >
> > For copy protection functionalities we shall then have separate entries
> > in AppDB - as I'm interested in my app functionality, not its DRM.
> >
> > I'm happy with the current AppDB state - AppDB is for users, not for
> > patent holders.
>
> Sadly in this world we have to always be conscious of both.
I agree. Applications should just work on Wine. If they don't (through
copy protection or missing functionality), it is misleading to
advertise an application as being Gold or Platinum.
> Also, +1 to dan's arguement about modifying the definitions of
> Gold/Platinum. Gold should really imply works out of the box with
> minor gaps in functionality or crashes, NOT works with overrides +
> cracks. Platinum should imply works out of the box no excuses 100%
> working.
+1
> I'm also intruiged by the idea of specially flagging apps that work
> but need overrides / cracks; if properly thought out that might be a
> reasonable solution as well.
+1
How about if there are two statuses? The first is with no
overrides/cracks/etc., while the second is with documented ways to get
the application working. If the application requires a crack to get
around copy protection, this should be preceeded with a disclaimer
saying that this is not supported by WineHQ, is illegal in some
countries and is likely to contain malware.
For applications like StarCraft, where a patch is available by the
company that removes the copy protection legally, this should be
documented in AppDB and the rating should use the patch by default.
- Reece
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list