WineHQ should discourage the use of cracks
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%
> 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.
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.
More information about the wine-devel