On 22 May 2018 at 05:37, Doug Newgard via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2018 23:17:39 -0400 Eli Schwartz via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
All this being said:
[11:07:23 PM] <MoonchildPM|Away> eschwartz: if you plan to go that route, that's fine and someone can have a look over your build configuration (which I could do as well if it is was not 5 in the morning) and can tell you what's wrong with it. In the interim, until permission is granted, you are NOT allowed to keep these packages up since you're in violation. You ask permission first, get it granted first, THEN are allowed to use it if OK, not in any other order
What these jokers don't seem to get is that there is NO packages involved here. There is nothing here that violates the license as there is no redistribution at all. Moot point, move on and whine somewhere else.
They seem to acknowledge it with:
[10:43:49 PM] <KlipKyle> eschwartz: you are distributing build scripts, like Gentoo ebuilds except less automation. The same rules apply.
What they seem to be against is the use of the name, which the pkgname variable does contain. And the upstream URL too I guess? If you can even claim trademark violation over a URL.