On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Emil Lundberg <lundberg.emil@gmail.com> wrote:
This doesn't matter though. The AUR does not host any software that may or may not be used for copyright infringement. The AUR is simply a collection of build scripts.
Keep in mind that this exact argument was used by The Pirate Bay in Swedish court, and they were struck down for "facilitation of copyright infringement" if I recall correctly. I don't doubt that the proportion of illegal activity is substantially greater for The Pirate Bay than for the AUR, but what's the real difference except that they also made money from ads?
I'm not saying it's wrong to allow the package in question, I just wanted to point this out. And even if this would tick someone off I doubt anyone would bother taking Arch to court for something like this anytime soon.
/Emil
We had a discussion about "warez in the AUR" a few times: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016268.html https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016282.html https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2012-January/017268.html If you can legally buy a game (e.g. on gog.com), should the AUR package be allowed to download the source (game data, not the source code) from abandonia.com and friends?