Hello, I can see the inconvenience of requiring manual steps for a PKGBUILD, but I feel like that it is probably the right thing to do in this situation. One would probably want to avoid further issues with Blackmagic Design down the road. An healthy amount of precaution can't hurt and the practice of requiring files to provided locally doesn't seem uncommon for the AUR as well.
I have gone through a similar situation when adopting packages for Oracle GraalVM Enterprise Edition lately. LTS Releases require users to register an account and agree to additional License Agreements on download. Workarounds for getting those files existed and were used by AUR Package Maintainers and others for a while until eventually closed and there being actual conflicts being Package Maintainers and Oracle that caused the Maintainers to orphan their packages. While I appreciate that you pointed out that workarounds for Davinci Resolve exist and/or have been used in the past, downloading the files primary through Support Centers etc. is likely unintended behavior and could throw a bad light at the AUR or Arch, or degrade the service the Support Center could provide for other users in the future. Blackmagic Design has probably legitimate interest in ensuring that people go through the flow of the website to be potentially "upsold" on the Studio Version or be bound to their Privacy Policy and Terms on registration. If not for "AUR rule violations", maintaining or using AUR packages shouldn't make us break terms or conditions of the developer of the software. Having to locally download files shouldn't be breaking behavior for a user when using AUR Packages as best practice expects the user to confront themselves with the content of the PKGBUILD anyway. This includes to take notice of additional requirements such as the file that is locally required. One can expect so much effort to put in by the user. One thing I could maybe see being done here is approaching Blackmagic Design directly in a diplomatic manner to find a solution to optimizing this, but since the primary goal of Blackmagic Design seems to be the identification of it's users, I am not optimistic about how and if we had could come to compromise there. If anything, Muflone as the package maintainer is probably the most qualified in assessing if such an approach would be useful and to have said conversation. I apologize in advance when I messed up to answer to this thread, since I am new to using mailing lists. Best Regards, PureFallen
