On 05/22/18 at 01:43am, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
On 05/22/2018 12:37 AM, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
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.
Yes, it's quite weird. Though as I said, if the AUR maintainer can somehow come to some agreement with them about applying some pretty basic fixes like a bunch of upstream Mozilla patches, then this whole issue could just disappear on its own, which would be nice.
This does assume someone is interested in actually discussing things with the palemoon team which doesn't seem to be a fun prospect at all, due to lack of reciprocation.
But I'm not fundamentally opposed to leaving this a trademark dispute, where I expect it to die as -ENOT_IN_VIOLATION.
The accusation is trademark infringement, not copyright. The fact that what we're distributing is not their work is kind of the point. Whether or not PKGBUILDs can infringe a trademark and whether or not this specific one does, is basilisk really such an amazing piece of software that it's worth getting into a fight with its developers just to keep it in the AUR? Let's just remove it and be done. Years ago, we had a similar situation with ion3, and, if IIRC, it was ultimately removed. apg