[slipstream-]

"Please keep comments respectful as they own the IP and do not have a public download url."

so, they want to waste their money sending spam to all the fake emails everyone enters in their website when they reinstall windows

i think they could have thought that through a little better

[dsp1234]

do not have a public download url

The URL in question[0] provides a 200 response and an executable without requiring authorization/authentication. That's a particularly weird definition of "not public"

[0] - https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-coreteampackages/co...

https://www.telerik.com/docs/default-source/fiddler/fiddlers...

[slipstream-]

I was quoting from the pinned comment on the page, by the way.

And, that is indeed a particularly weird definition of "not public", but from my experience, par for the course when there's only a squeeze page in the way of a download.

[dsp1234]

I was definitely commenting the issue (and likely Telerik's) definition of "not public".

The two stated reasons (again, likely just citing Telerik's request), are "they own the ip" and "it's not public" are just bogus. Linking to a publicly accessible resource doesn't have anything to do with IP (using someone's trademark to accurately describe the thing or direct people to it is not a crime, at least in the US), and "it's not public" is just false, as shown.

All in all, seems like a cave on Chocolatey's part. Particularly since they have a whole section of their FAQ dedicated to vendor distribution rights[0], which goes through pains to show that most of the time, there is no distribution at all (since it's just automation scripts).

This is about as silly as Telerik saying that I can't write:

"curl https://www.telerik.com/docs/default-source/fiddler/fiddlers...

[0] - https://chocolatey.org/docs/package-triage-process#are-you-a...