<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Dan Kegel <<a href="mailto:dank@kegel.com">dank@kegel.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div>Would you also object to removing high ratings from<br>
apps that need cracks? IMHO "Gold" ought not to<br>
imply that one has to seek out a crack (and thereby<br>
potentially infect your machine with malware).</blockquote><div><br>If you think about it, we could technically add cracks to the AppDB and<br>give them platinum rating if they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. ;-)<br>
<br>But in semi-seriousness, I agree completely. Legalities of cracking aside,<br>we're trying to judge if the application works perfectly. Wording regarding<br>cracking should probably be removed from the site as it sets a weird tone,<br>
but the RATING of a program should be completely dependent on its working<br>state out of the box.<br><br>If a DLL isn't supported, or something isn't yet programmed, then that is the<br>curse of working on a project that isn't 1.0 yet. :-)<br>
<br></div></div><br>