On 04/03/2008, Zachary Goldberg zgold550@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Vit Hrachovy vit.hrachovy@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