On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:

You don't seem to explain why you need to ask in your email.

Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera.

On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 18:06 +0200, Andreas Radke via arch-dev-public wrote:

Am Sat, 01 Jun 2019 17:53:58 +0200 schrieb Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public :

...

On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:

...

You don't seem to explain why you need to ask in your email.

Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera.

Crap. There's no reason to support any closed browser at all. We are still an Open Source Linux distribution. Sure we have a relaxed policy adding closed source packages and blobs wherever needed to support hardware.

But there's no reason to support spying tools like closed source browsers!

-Andy

I understand your sentiment, but just being harsh does not contribute to a solution. To be honest, our beloved "open source" browsers are far from holy in terms of data collection. I don't think we should try to be holier than the pope here. And also note there is genuine requests from users to add it to the official repos. Also, I'm just trying to be nice here about adding something proprietary. Instead of just dropping it in the repo's an be done with it. And I'm still convinced that Vivaldi offers more unique features that are very usefull compared to what we ship now in terms of web browsers. But if most of the Arch Linux group is against adding it, I will honor that.

On 6/1/19 5:43 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:

On 2/6/19 1:53 am, Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public wrote:

...

On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:

...

You don't seem to explain why you need to ask in your email.

Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera.

Does the license allow us to have it in the repos? After a quick look, I'd say no.

The license for the AUR package appears to be somehow extracted using /usr/bin/strings from one of the binary files in the software download. Assuming it's the same as the one here: https://vivaldi.com/privacy/vivaldi-end-user-license-agreement/ It's absolutely illegal to redistribute it. As per the pinned comment on the AUR package, it is also available and illegally redistributed as a repackaged pacman package here: https://repo.herecura.eu/ This should probably be removed too. Note: there are other proprietary packages shipped in the Arch repos, but on the unusual occasion where we deem it fitting to provide such software, we have written authorization from the rights-holders to do so. As far as I can tell, that is not the case here. If and when it is the case here, that permission can be added to the /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ directory of the vivaldi package in the AUR, to signify that the prebuilt packages are legally redistributable, either in personally hosted repos or [community]. See the teamspeak3 package for an example implementation. https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION.eml?h... ... Just because we are not an FSDG distribution which prays at the altar of Richard Stallman doesn't mean licensing is some sort of silly joke that no one cares about. And I don't think it makes sense to say this matters less, if it's being distributed from someone's personal repo instead of from a multi-member organization. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

On 6/2/19 2:59 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:

On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 22:11 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:

...

On 6/1/19 5:43 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:

...

On 2/6/19 1:53 am, Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public wrote:

...

On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:

...

You don't seem to explain why you need to ask in your email.

Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera.

Does the license allow us to have it in the repos? After a quick look, I'd say no.

The license for the AUR package appears to be somehow extracted using /usr/bin/strings from one of the binary files in the software download.

Assuming it's the same as the one here: https://vivaldi.com/privacy/vivaldi-end-user-license-agreement/

It's absolutely illegal to redistribute it. As per the pinned comment on the AUR package, it is also available and illegally redistributed as a repackaged pacman package here: https://repo.herecura.eu/ This should probably be removed too.

Note: there are other proprietary packages shipped in the Arch repos, but on the unusual occasion where we deem it fitting to provide such software, we have written authorization from the rights-holders to do so. As far as I can tell, that is not the case here. If and when it is the case here, that permission can be added to the /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ directory of the vivaldi package in the AUR, to signify that the prebuilt packages are legally redistributable, either in personally hosted repos or [community].

See the teamspeak3 package for an example implementation. https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION.eml?h...

...

Just because we are not an FSDG distribution which prays at the altar of Richard Stallman doesn't mean licensing is some sort of silly joke that no one cares about.

And I don't think it makes sense to say this matters less, if it's being distributed from someone's personal repo instead of from a multi- member organization.

If that's what it requires, I can get a written consent we can re- distribute vivaldi. I asked them before putting it in my personal repo, if I was allowed to do that.

Cool -- if you have that permission, then there's no reason not to put it in the AUR package too, though. :) -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User