I've been fighting against the notion that the wine project encourages cracks for some time now. Cracked versions of apps are bad because they are a) illegal (at least in the US), b) disrespectful of the author of the app, and c) much more likely to be infected with malware.
One place we still do it is in our appdb ratings definitions; http://appdb.winehq.org//help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings which say "Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc. "
I propose that we change the appdb ratings definitions so that an app that only works with a crack gets no higher than bronze.
Any objections? - Dan
I've been fighting against the notion that the wine project encourages cracks for some time now. Cracked versions of apps are bad because they are a) illegal (at least in the US), b) disrespectful of the author of the app, and c) much more likely to be infected with malware.
One place we still do it is in our appdb ratings definitions; http://appdb.winehq.org//help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings which say "Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc. "
I propose that we change the appdb ratings definitions so that an app that only works with a crack gets no higher than bronze.
Any objections?
- Dan
I believe that here in Europe a crack doesn't have to be illegal. We should fix copy protection support but it is not trivial at all and various games use different protection schemes. Most games really don't work without a crack. Further there are protections like StarForce which we will never be able to support. Limiting apps with cracks to bronze is a bit hard in my opinion.
Roderick
Roderick Colenbrander thunderbird2k@gmx.net wrote:
I believe that here in Europe a crack doesn't have to be illegal. We should fix copy protection support but it is not trivial at all... Most games really don't work without a crack. ... Limiting apps with cracks to bronze is a bit hard in my opinion.
Hard it may be, but WineHQ cannot be in a position of encouraging unlawful behavior in the lawsuit-happy and copyright-holder-friendly country in which a large number of its developers live and work.
Can we at least agree that needing a crack disqualifies the app from gold status?
But the wine project DOES encourage the use of cracks. It allows some applications with unsupported copy-protection to run on Linux, but only if a crack is used, creating an incentive for some people to use cracks. QED.
The way to stop doing that would be to support copy protections and make cracks useless, except for people who would need them anyway. (This is not easy, I know.)
It's not clear to me what you want to accomplish by changing the ratings. If games that only work with a crack become bronze instead of gold, will fewer people really use cracks? Will they decide, from just looking at the rating, that they don't want to use wine for their app? Is that really a good thing if it happens?
I don't think this would change the incentives, and thus how much wine encourages cracks, at all.
So would you be doing this just to make someone I don't know about happy?
That said, I don't really see the fact that it's likely to have no real effect as a reason not to change the ratings. It just makes doing it a bit silly.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
I've been fighting against the notion that the wine project encourages cracks for some time now. Cracked versions of apps are bad because they are a) illegal (at least in the US), b) disrespectful of the author of the app, and c) much more likely to be infected with malware.
One place we still do it is in our appdb ratings definitions; http://appdb.winehq.org//help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings which say "Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc. "
I propose that we change the appdb ratings definitions so that an app that only works with a crack gets no higher than bronze.
Any objections?
- Dan
Vincent Povirk madewokherd+d41d@gmail.com wrote:
It's not clear to me what you want to accomplish by changing the ratings. If games that only work with a crack become bronze instead of gold, will fewer people really use cracks? Will they decide, from just looking at the rating, that they don't want to use wine for their app? Is that really a good thing if it happens?
I don't think this would change the incentives, and thus how much wine encourages cracks, at all.
Does Microsoft encourage people to use cracks? No. Wine shouldn't either.
The fact is, by telling people about cracks, and by giving high ratings to apps that only work with cracks, WineHQ encourages the use of cracks.
The use of cracks is really independent of wine and/or windows, and it's bad for the Wine project if people start associating Wine with breaking the law, disrespecting copyright, and encouraging people to seek out software from seedy, malware-ridden warez sites. - Dan
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Does Microsoft encourage people to use cracks? No. Wine shouldn't either.
Microsoft doesn't need to. Software developers have good reasons make sure their copy protections will work on Windows (for most people anyway).
The fact is, by telling people about cracks, and by giving high ratings to apps that only work with cracks, WineHQ encourages the use of cracks.
I would object to removing information about cracks (unless, perhaps, the cracks aren't needed and would lead users to do tweaking that is unnecessary and therefore risky and bad) from the appdb. The appdb is always competing with other sources of app support. When it stops providing the information that people want, and that information is available elsewhere, people will go elsewhere. Do I have to explain why that is bad for users and for the wine project?
The use of cracks is really independent of wine and/or windows, and it's bad for the Wine project if people start associating Wine with breaking the law, disrespecting copyright, and encouraging people to seek out software from seedy, malware-ridden warez sites.
- Dan
I thought that was bad for copyright law and DRM (since the goal here is not to use software without paying for it but just to run it on a different platform, but that goal can't be met without breaking the law and the DRM), but maybe I don't think about this the way most people do?
Vincent Povirk madewokherd+d41d@gmail.com wrote:
The fact is, by telling people about cracks, and by giving high ratings to apps that only work with cracks, WineHQ encourages the use of cracks.
I would object to removing information about cracks
Would you also object to removing high ratings from apps that need cracks? IMHO "Gold" ought not to imply that one has to seek out a crack (and thereby potentially infect your machine with malware).
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Would you also object to removing high ratings from apps that need cracks? IMHO "Gold" ought not to imply that one has to seek out a crack (and thereby potentially infect your machine with malware).
To me the whole concept of Gold meaning anything that works our of the box with no dlloverride changes, is broken. I am willing to concede Bronze for cracks if Silver means dlloverrides depending on MSFT runtimes. I have ethical reasons for this that transcend copyright. Wine dcom development stagnated for too long because we were able to get by with dcom9x and the thought of certifying an application as Gold with Microsoft dlls hurts the project long term more than it helps.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Would you also object to removing high ratings from apps that need cracks? IMHO "Gold" ought not to imply that one has to seek out a crack (and thereby potentially infect your machine with malware).
Not in principle. The rating system doesn't really change the information available on the site. For anything that's not Garbage or Platinum, it's important anyway to look at the entry for more details.
I do agree that treating cracks differently from patches or overrides would be inconsistent, as those are just as difficult to set up.
As others have pointed out, ratings actually express two different things: the maximum possible functionality of an app and the difficulty involved in getting that functionality. Right now, the only rating that addresses difficulty is Platinum (an app that requires an override or hack can be anywhere from Bronze to Gold). The ratings currently look like this:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks Silver: Mostly functional, may require hacks Gold: Fully functional, requires hacks Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks
Something like this might actually make more sense:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks Gold: Mostly functional, does not require hacks Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks
This would give a fair amount of information about both the level of functionality and the difficulty, and it would mean anything that requires hacks cannot be rated Gold. It would also mean a program that works only with a crack can be rated Silver, but I can't come up with anything consistent that would force them to be rated Bronze.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Vincent Povirk madewokherd+d41d@gmail.com wrote:
Something like this might actually make more sense:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks Gold: Mostly functional, does not require hacks Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks
This would give a fair amount of information about both the level of functionality and the difficulty, and it would mean anything that requires hacks cannot be rated Gold.
That's a step in the right direction. As long as we don't explicitly mention cracks, I'm ok with that. - Dan
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Vincent Povirk
madewokherd+d41d@gmail.com wrote:
Something like this might actually make more sense:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks Gold: Mostly functional, does not require hacks Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks
This would give a fair amount of information about both the level of functionality and the difficulty, and it would mean anything that requires hacks cannot be rated Gold.
That's a step in the right direction. As long as we don't explicitly mention cracks, I'm ok with that.
- Dan
I'm not sure if we should remove the option for 'fully functional, requires hacks'. A lot of people come to the AppDB to find out how they can make their apps work, and are more interested in the end result as opposed to how to get there.
It might not be a good idea, but we could always introduce a new rating so that we have
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks Gold: Mostly functional, does not require hacks Ivory: Fully functional, requires hacks Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks
Not saying it's a good idea.
Otherwise, adding a 'difficulty' field sounds interesting. This would allow users to easily avoid apps that require a really complicated work-around, such as patching and compiling Wine. Then we could also add an option to turn on warnings if an app requires a crack, or we could censor it automatically based on GeoIP data.
Regards,
Alexander N. Sørnes
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com wrote:
It might not be a good idea, but we could always introduce a new rating so that we have
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks Gold: Mostly functional, does not require hacks Ivory: Fully functional, requires hacks Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks
Not saying it's a good idea.
Too complicated. Reminds me of the us government's terror threat level index :-)
Otherwise, adding a 'difficulty' field sounds interesting. This would allow users to easily avoid apps that require a really complicated work-around, such as patching and compiling Wine. Then we could also add an option to turn on warnings if an app requires a crack, or we could censor it automatically based on GeoIP data.
Tempting but I think ultimately too complicated. I think we should stick with a single rating scheme that requires 'no fiddling' for gold or platinum.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com wrote:
I'm not sure if we should remove the option for 'fully functional, requires hacks'. A lot of people come to the AppDB to find out how they can make their apps work, and are more interested in the end result as opposed to how to get there.
In practice, is there really enough difference between "fully functional" and "mostly functional" that we need another rating? People who only care about the end result would know that anything Silver or above will just about work.
I've seen Gold applied to software that is really "mostly functional, requires hacks", i.e. there are some other minor problems that can't be worked around (and Platinum for software with minor problems as well).
Then again, if we add a few more variables, we can express the ratings with radar charts. ;)
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9466/screenshot5ec1.png
Vincent Povirk madewokherd+d41d@gmail.com wrote:
If we only based ratings on how well applications work out of the box, a Garbage rating would apply to any app that requires some extra step to run, even if the extra step is grabbing MFC42.dll and putting it in system32
This is a valid concern. I think we may end up having to deal with this by providing an easy, standard way to install the most commonly needed, legally redistributable dependencies. For instance, we might bundle a couple of key demo apps with Wine; if we choose carefully, we can probably find a set of apps that will just happen to install all the commonly needed redistributables. - Dan
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
This is a valid concern. I think we may end up having to deal with this by providing an easy, standard way to install the most commonly needed, legally redistributable dependencies. For instance, we might bundle a couple of key demo apps with Wine; if we choose carefully, we can probably find a set of apps that will just happen to install all the commonly needed redistributables.
This really sounds like an issue for distribution maintainers, OEMs, Vars and Wine companies like CodeWeavers. I really don't think Winehq should ever get in to a position of shipping third party runtimes via back door demos. If you want to do it in Winetricks or if the Bordeaux and PlayOnLinux guys want to do it, more power to you. Nothing stops you from making your own Wine package and distributing it however you like with whatever third party runtimes and demos that you like.
Vincent Povirk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com wrote:
I'm not sure if we should remove the option for 'fully functional, requires hacks'. A lot of people come to the AppDB to find out how they can make their apps work, and are more interested in the end result as opposed to how to get there.
In practice, is there really enough difference between "fully functional" and "mostly functional" that we need another rating? People who only care about the end result would know that anything Silver or above will just about work.
I've seen Gold applied to software that is really "mostly functional, requires hacks", i.e. there are some other minor problems that can't be worked around (and Platinum for software with minor problems as well).
Then again, if we add a few more variables, we can express the ratings with radar charts. ;)
Yeah, use a multi-dimensional rating system. Have different criteria and not just one. Rate each with zero to four stars. The overall rating (platinum, gold, garbage) is then a function of all the criteria ratings.
Rating: - 0: Does not work - 1: Works but ... - 2: Works but requires dlls (download from internet) - 3: Works but requires local changes in winecfg (sound settings etc) - 4: Works with vanilla wine
Criteria: - Installation - Functionality - Usability - ???
The radar chart is not a bad idea. smartvote.ch, a site that helps you find out who to vote for (in switzerland), creates nice charts:
http://dbservice.com/ftpdir/tom/smartspider.png
tom
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
Vincent Povirk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com wrote:
I'm not sure if we should remove the option for 'fully functional, requires hacks'. A lot of people come to the AppDB to find out how they can make their apps work, and are more interested in the end result as opposed to how to get there.
In practice, is there really enough difference between "fully functional" and "mostly functional" that we need another rating? People who only care about the end result would know that anything Silver or above will just about work.
I've seen Gold applied to software that is really "mostly functional, requires hacks", i.e. there are some other minor problems that can't be worked around (and Platinum for software with minor problems as well).
Then again, if we add a few more variables, we can express the ratings with radar charts. ;)
Yeah, use a multi-dimensional rating system. Have different criteria and not just one. Rate each with zero to four stars. The overall rating (platinum, gold, garbage) is then a function of all the criteria ratings.
Rating:
- 0: Does not work
- 1: Works but ...
- 2: Works but requires dlls (download from internet)
- 3: Works but requires local changes in winecfg (sound settings etc)
- 4: Works with vanilla wine
Criteria:
- Installation
- Functionality
- Usability
- ???
The radar chart is not a bad idea. smartvote.ch, a site that helps you find out who to vote for (in switzerland), creates nice charts:
http://dbservice.com/ftpdir/tom/smartspider.png
tom
Yay nested quotes.
I think adding this kind of rating is exactly what the Appdb needs. It has enough flexibility and simplicity to concisely inform what's needed to run the program.
What About:
madewokherd+d41d@gmail.com wrote:
Something like this might actually make more sense:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks
Fools Gold: Fully functional, requires hacks
Gold: Mostly functional, does not require hacks Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks
Since only a fool would use a crack that's possibly Malware, or use a piece of code that's from Microsoft
Dan Kegel wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Vincent Povirk madewokherd+d41d@gmail.com wrote:
Something like this might actually make more sense:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks Gold: Mostly functional, does not require hacks Platinum: Fully functional, does not require hacks
This would give a fair amount of information about both the level of functionality and the difficulty, and it would mean anything that requires hacks cannot be rated Gold.
That's a step in the right direction. As long as we don't explicitly mention cracks, I'm ok with that.
- Dan
+1
Vit
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Would you also object to removing high ratings from apps that need cracks? IMHO "Gold" ought not to imply that one has to seek out a crack (and thereby potentially infect your machine with malware).
If you think about it, we could technically add cracks to the AppDB and give them platinum rating if they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. ;-)
But in semi-seriousness, I agree completely. Legalities of cracking aside, we're trying to judge if the application works perfectly. Wording regarding cracking should probably be removed from the site as it sets a weird tone, but the RATING of a program should be completely dependent on its working state out of the box.
If a DLL isn't supported, or something isn't yet programmed, then that is the curse of working on a project that isn't 1.0 yet. :-)
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Guillaume VanderEst me@gn0me.org wrote:
But in semi-seriousness, I agree completely. Legalities of cracking aside, we're trying to judge if the application works perfectly. Wording regarding cracking should probably be removed from the site as it sets a weird tone, but the RATING of a program should be completely dependent on its working state out of the box.
I have to disagree here. The appdb is where people go to find out about application compatibility, providing some information related to the question "Will I be able to run this app in Wine, and if so how?". If we only based ratings on how well applications work out of the box, a Garbage rating would apply to any app that requires some extra step to run, even if the extra step is grabbing MFC42.dll and putting it in system32, as well as any app that no one has been able to run yet. That's not very useful.
If a DLL isn't supported, or something isn't yet programmed, then that is the curse of working on a project that isn't 1.0 yet. :-)
Not at all. We can expect to see such things happen long after 1.0 is released.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 04:15:10AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
I propose that we change the appdb ratings definitions so that an app that only works with a crack gets no higher than bronze.
how about:
give it the next state to gold and add a appdb flag, that states "may only work if some <put in legaly correct term for a crack here>" flag to the app and then provide the maintainers with a proper explanation of the flag in the UI. if the flag is set, then do not allow the highest state - even if is rated gold. then take of some weeks and weed through the appdb and fix all occurences of the word crack.
I'm against lowering the rating for an app that requires a "No CD Patch" to run simply because they aren't hard to find or install (normally anyway) and when used restores full functionality to the game. Much like having to use a native DLL. Lower ratings should be reserved for games that have problems which are considerably harder to get working or have unresolvable issues (of varying degrees). I have little respect for copy-protection schemes due to either a) underhanded methods of operation or b) the mess they can create. Normally the only thing they end up doing is stopping people that legally own the games from actually using them (and this is a good example of that). If people really want to pirate games then they wouldn't have much of an issue spending 2 minutes longer looking for something.
Just my (slightly irritated) 2 pence.
Ben H.
Dan Kegel wrote:
I've been fighting against the notion that the wine project encourages cracks for some time now. Cracked versions of apps are bad because they are a) illegal (at least in the US), b) disrespectful of the author of the app, and c) much more likely to be infected with malware.
One place we still do it is in our appdb ratings definitions; http://appdb.winehq.org//help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings which say "Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc. "
I propose that we change the appdb ratings definitions so that an app that only works with a crack gets no higher than bronze.
Any objections?
- Dan
Hi Dan,
in fact a DLL override may be another form of 'crack' - given the situation I'm not owner of a Windows copy and need to override MS DLL which is not free to use without Windows license.
I think we should not mix up the functionality ratings with legality ratings. I consider this a politicspeak, not techspeak.
Given the problem above - we can solve it by rewording in a similar spirit but leaving the bad word out:
"Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, etc. Copy protection issues are not considered as issues here."
Regards Vit
Vit Hrachovy vit.hrachovy@sandbox.cz wrote:
in fact a DLL override may be another form of 'crack' - given the situation I'm not owner of a Windows copy and need to override MS DLL which is not free to use without Windows license.
That's much less risky. First off, most Wine users currently happen to have a Windows license, due to the Microsoft tax. Second, most of the MS DLLs people need to grab can be downloaded directly from Microsoft, thus avoiding malware exposure.
Given the problem above - we can solve it by rewording in a similar spirit but leaving the bad word out:
"Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, etc. Copy protection issues are not considered as issues here."
Sorry, that doesn't do it for me. Apps that need cracks are simply not convenient or safe enough to merit a gold rating, IMHO. - Dan
Dan Kegel wrote:
"Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, etc. Copy protection issues are not considered as issues here."
Sorry, that doesn't do it for me. Apps that need cracks are simply not convenient or safe enough to merit a gold rating, IMHO.
- Dan
O.K. So I don't agree with Your opinion.
Gold means for me the application works for me as I expect it to work.
Copy protection is for me just an obstacle to skip through - I crack all the legal SW I've bought, because I need comfort using the application, not being whipped up by stupid DRM.
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.
Regards Vit
Vit Hrachovy vit.hrachovy@sandbox.cz wrote:
Apps that need cracks are simply not convenient or safe enough to merit a gold rating, IMHO.
Copy protection is for me just an obstacle to skip through...
I think you're setting the bar too low on usability. Software should not require jumping over obstacles of any sort to reach gold.
Platinum should be obstacle-free and also visually nearly perfect. - Dan
I totally get why you want to make it look like Wine isn't encouraging cracks, but if that's all that's keeping an app from plat status, one notch should be enough. How about
Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings etc. Application may not work correctly due to unsupported copy protection.
It sounds a bit less like Wine directly saying "works if you crack it".
The thing is, if you bust an app down to bronze that works fine except for a copy protection issue, all that's going to happen is people are going to post "wtf? It works fine with a crack" anyway. Especially when cracking an app you have a right to use isn't illegal in a lot of juristictions.
-- Chris
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Dan Kegel wrote:
Vit Hrachovy vit.hrachovy@sandbox.cz wrote:
Apps that need cracks are simply not convenient or safe enough to merit a gold rating, IMHO.
Copy protection is for me just an obstacle to skip through...
I think you're setting the bar too low on usability. Software should not require jumping over obstacles of any sort to reach gold.
Many folks feel that they have to jump over the same bars on Windows -- Vit included, it seems. Much of the commercial software I have to support is barely usable on its intended platform (wouldn't even get close to silver without "cracks").
Steve Brown sbrown7@umbc.edu
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Vit Hrachovy vit.hrachovy@sandbox.cz wrote:
Dan Kegel wrote:
"Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, etc. Copy protection issues are not considered as issues here."
Sorry, that doesn't do it for me. Apps that need cracks are simply not convenient or safe enough to merit a gold rating, IMHO.
- Dan
O.K. So I don't agree with Your opinion.
Gold means for me the application works for me as I expect it to work.
Copy protection is for me just an obstacle to skip through - I crack all the legal SW I've bought, because I need comfort using the application, not being whipped up by stupid DRM.
That opinion unfortunatly is not one a community which may be in the legal line of site can take. Dan mentioned before that a large number of Wine's devs are in the US and in the US using such tactics are illegal. The Wine community should respect that, even if it may mean hindering some usability in the short term.
In an ideal world I agree with you, I am also of the opinion that 'I bought the software, let me use it on any OS i please'. However, if something like copy protection prevents such a thing and the only way around it use to use a technique deemed illegal by our government we have no choice but to comply as a community or face really a rather expensive legal battle. That doesn't mean we can't make a fuss about it; attempt to change such a law civilly but in the short term, life's tough.
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.
Regards Vit
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.
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.
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
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 13:15:10 Dan Kegel wrote:
I've been fighting against the notion that the wine project encourages cracks for some time now. Cracked versions of apps are bad because they are a) illegal (at least in the US),
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU laws, you're allowed to crack an app you bought in order to make it run on your software. As this hasn't been tested in court yet, though, I'll concede.
b) disrespectful of the author of the app, and
Sometimes I wonder if a "look, we found a legal use for a crack" wouldn't be something that could move a publisher to help make his stuff work. Of course most publishers probably wouldn't agree to my reasoning in a), making b) a moot point.
c) much more likely to be infected with malware.
No arguments here.
One place we still do it is in our appdb ratings definitions; http://appdb.winehq.org//help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings which say "Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc. "
I propose that we change the appdb ratings definitions so that an app that only works with a crack gets no higher than bronze.
Fine with me. I agree with your reasoning of having to avoid being associated with malware and illegal activities. I think a better solution even for my point b) is to publicly support publishers who play nice. Did I mention I really like the fact that Blizzard finally decided to not force me to search for my star craft cd anymore? :)
Cheers, Kai
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU laws, you're allowed to crack an app you bought in order to make it run on your software. As this hasn't been tested in court yet, though, I'll concede.
This has been tested in the Norwegian court (the famous DVD-Jon case). It was ruled that developing, distributing and applying software to make software work on your OS is perfectly legal. But then again we don't have a horde of those nasty lobbyists over here.
Cheers,
Tomas
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:35:11PM +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU laws, you're allowed to crack an app you bought in order to make it run on your software. As this hasn't been tested in court yet, though, I'll concede.
IANAL, but since 2008 germany adopted a law from a EU proposal (maybe other countries added it before), that disallows circumventing copy protections at all. so in theory your statement is not true any longer for the EU.
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 16:23:46 Christoph Frick wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:35:11PM +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU laws, you're allowed to crack an app you bought in order to make it run on your software. As this hasn't been tested in court yet, though, I'll concede.
IANAL, but since 2008 germany adopted a law from a EU proposal (maybe other countries added it before), that disallows circumventing copy protections at all. so in theory your statement is not true any longer for the EU.
Und soweit ich weiß läuft da gerade eine Verfassungsklage dagegen. Aber stimmt, das hatte ich vergessen. :)
Gruß, Kai
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 17:08:19 Kai Blin wrote:
Und soweit ich weiß läuft da gerade eine Verfassungsklage dagegen. Aber stimmt, das hatte ich vergessen. :)
It's time for another "reply-to munging considered harmful" post, I guess. I actually wanted to send this to Christoph. If anyone cares, it says "IIRC there's someone suing against that new law already. But you're right, I forgot about that one."
Sorry about that, I'm kind of used to pressing 'l' if I want to reply to the list and 'r' if I want to reply to the author. For wine-devel, I need to remember to press 'A' to send to the author.
Cheers, Kai
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:35:11PM +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU laws, you're allowed to crack an app you bought in order to make it run on your software. As this hasn't been tested in court yet, though, I'll concede.
IANAL, but since 2008 germany adopted a law from a EU proposal (maybe other countries added it before), that disallows circumventing copy protections at all. so in theory your statement is not true any longer for the EU.
Hi! Here, in Czech Republic, there is also a new law forbidding to circumvent the copy protection, it probably comes from the same european source as the German one. However, using cracks to make the app running on wine can't be primarily classified as "circumventing copy protection", but as "modifying an app to run on other OS", which is, I hope, still legal. I think that if I own a legal copy of an application, didn't make any illegal copies of it, and just modified it to run in wine, any court on the world should decide, that my intention was not to circumvent the copy protection (because it is not of any importance to me, I already legally have it), but to make it working (yes, I've spent my money to use the app and I had to modify it to be able to use it). Our courts have to evidence my invention to make a punishable act (like to circumvent the copy protection to either get a pirated copy or to sell my pirated copies to anybody else), but if I did something similar, but for evidently another purpose (to run the legally owned app), I think that it's not a punishable act. Something similar happened recently - a court set free an old woman which was growing marihuana strictly for medical purpose, even if there is a law strictly prohibiting to grow marihuana at all. Of course IANAL, but my kids are running cracked games on wine, however we HAVE all the CDs including bills from the shop for everybody, who would like to accuse us of using illegal software.
With regards, Pavel Troller
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 04:23:46PM +0100, Christoph Frick wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:35:11PM +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU laws, you're allowed to crack an app you bought in order to make it run on your software. As this hasn't been tested in court yet, though, I'll concede.
IANAL, but since 2008 germany adopted a law from a EU proposal (maybe other countries added it before), that disallows circumventing copy protections at all. so in theory your statement is not true any longer for the EU.
Last time I read that part of the german law my understanding was that the part about copy prevention doesn't apply to software.
Jan
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Dan Kegel wrote:
"Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc. "
I propose that we change the appdb ratings definitions so that an app that only works with a crack gets no higher than bronze.
I have mixed emotions on this -- I can understand the reluctance of folks, that are only running an app for the purpose of testing, to shelling out several kilobucks for a license... but I also am morally opposed to piracy (it's why I got into the Linux realm in the first place). That said, there are a couple proprietary programs that the users I support use that have such poor support from the vendor that the users go ahead and buy the licenses, but install a crack code -- just because it's easier than dealing with the vendors... sigh.
I would vote for trying to find out what the cracks mentioned in the database are _really_ about. Are they to allow offline playing of a game that constantly "calls home," license fee avoidance, running on a non-supported platform, other stuff? I wouldn't want a tester to "have" to lie about whether or not they were running a fully licensed version just to let us know about real issues.
Steve Brown sbrown7@umbc.edu
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 17:02:08 Steve Brown wrote:
I have mixed emotions on this -- I can understand the reluctance of folks, that are only running an app for the purpose of testing, to shelling out several kilobucks for a license... but I also am morally opposed to piracy (it's why I got into the Linux realm in the first place). That said, there are a couple proprietary programs that the users I support use that have such poor support from the vendor that the users go ahead and buy the licenses, but install a crack code -- just because it's easier than dealing with the vendors... sigh.
Whoa there. That's not what we're talking about. We were never talking about piracy or anything like that. It seems like in lots of countries even cracking a program you do have a license for is illegal, and that's the only use of cracks that Wine ever was talking about.
I agree with Dan that an app where I might have to violate a law to be able to run it (even if I rightfully own a license and the system requirements said "Win98 or better" and I installed Linux) should not be Gold-rated. Steve Edwards also has a point with the psychological effect that might have on development.
Cheers, Kai
-
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes -
Ben Hodgetts -
Chris Howe -
Christoph Frick -
Dan Kegel -
Guillaume VanderEst -
Jan Zerebecki -
Kai Blin -
Mike Lothian -
Pavel Troller -
Reece Dunn -
Roderick Colenbrander -
Steve Brown -
Steven Edwards -
TheBlunderbuss -
Tomas Carnecky -
Tomas Zijdemans -
Vincent Povirk -
Vit Hrachovy -
Zachary Goldberg