Hello,
quoting and replying to everyone’s responses in no particular order (the
mailing list thread disappeared in my client, so I can’t properly reply):
> 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.
The download procedure through the support center and through the main
page is identical. The form is always required for the free version, and
always optional for the paid one. The support center provides access to
older versions of the software (and other, auxiliary software, like
Fusion standalone or the control panel setup tooling). I’m certain that
Blackmagic doesn’t mind people using it; as I stated before my primary
reason for going there is acquiring older, more bug-free software versions
> I think there is an argument to be made that davinci-resolve is
unpackageable under a strict interpretation of the AUR guidelines. I'm
not averse to the old implementation of the package, though, because it
was still a package.
> 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
It’s unclear to me whether Blackmagic actually wants to identify users
of the free version. Otherwise, they would verify the email address you
enter, force you to login, etc. It’s not exactly related to the topic of
this thread (but others have gone off the topic too, tough luck), but
Blackmagic’s market strategy with Resolve seems to be to get users to
use their free software that works wonderfully with their expensive
hardware, so they later go on buying their expensive hardware. (At least
for me this worked, if I was financially able to I would definitely
consider buying some of their hardware.)
Either way, I do understand the concerns with violating Blackmagic’s TOS
and license agreements, but I haven’t read them, so I cannot tell you.
> And in general everyone can revert the change locally. Nobody is
bound to do what the PKGBUILD on the aurweb does.
I was doing this for some time, but it’s effectively more effort
(especially when trying to keep up with fixes to the upstream PKGBUILD)
than downloading the package manually from Blackmagic’s website in the
first place.
Best regards
