6 ms·

If software vendors are making publically available a url from which to download packages, then as far as I'm concerned they can pound sand. What does it matter

If software vendors are making publically available a url from which to download packages, then as far as I'm concerned they can pound sand. What does it matter if I fetch its contents via a shell script or a browser? Providing a script to download binaries from the site is a completely different thing from re-hosting and redistributing binaries without permission. I don't use chocolatey and have no idea what the background is to this story, so don't take this as a defense of their actions.

jlarocco 9y ago
> If software vendors are making publically available a url from which to download packages, then as far as I'm concerned they can pound sand. What does it matter if I fetch its contents via a shell script or a browser? Is there any point arguing that? If Chocolatey refused, then Telerik would remove the public download. If Telerik insists on asking for email addresses or showing a TOS before allowing a download, then that's what they're going to do. You're technically correct, but it's not a technical issue.
jjeaff 9y ago
Exactly. If they want to require you to enter information before downloading, then create temporary download links. Problem solved.