On 1/6/19 8:12 pm, Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public wrote:

3 years have passed since I first proposed to bring vivaldi into community. Now there is a clear differentiation between what vivaldi offers out-of-the box compared to other browsers.

Vivaldi offers a ton of customisation features out of the box, and is also able to just use the chrome/ium addons from the chrome webstore.

Personally I'm using vivaldi as my main browser since somewhere in 2015 (shortly after the first beta was released) and the key features no other browser currently offers are: - webpanels - quick commands - tabtiling - tabstacking - tabbar positioning

I'll bring it in the same way as with opera, where you have the webbrowser + separate packge with libffmpeg.so to allow the playback of proprietary formats like mp4.

Does the license allow us to distribute it? And dozens of packages get added to [community] a week. Why are you asking here unless you think there will be an issue? You don't seem to explain why you need to ask in your email. Allan

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

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. A

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.

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