Theres nothing wrong about the license in my eyes because it is like Ondřej Kučera said: The User is allowed to download the source and compile it. No problem with the PKGBUILD as guide to install. So in this way only the install-script is important: Are you allowed to alter the code but nt to redistribute this changed version etc. This would mean that it isn't possible to include the package into the community-repo. 2008/10/31 Alessio Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com>:
On Fri 2008-10-31 19:45, Imanol Celaya wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Aaron Hussein Griffin < aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey guys,
I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point a few things out:
Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear.
That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we DON'T want). b) The original tarball no longer exists. c) I have seen no proof of copyright.
Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to be more careful here.
although the COPYING file it's wrong, isn't this the same "trick" we use with acroread?
I agree, there is a lot of stuff like that (not redistributable) in AUR and I don't see why it shouldn't stay there. There is no copyright infringement IMHO.
In this case the author explicitly asked to remove the PKGBUILD, so I think it should be removed to avoid legal actions against Arch Linux, but it should be stated publicly that the author is a fucktard^W^W wrong.
-- Alessio (molok) Bolognino