WineHQ should discourage the use of cracks

[Reece Dunn]

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