On 04/03/2008, Zachary Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Vit Hrachovy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
