On 28 October 2011 23:55, Peter Lewis <plewis@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Christopher luna wrote:
Im not even asking you to agree with me, Im asking you to vote and decide if including urls to warez on pkgbuilds that are on AUR is OFFICIALY ok, or not.
again is not about they being propietary software or about providing installers. Is ONLY about urls to warez. they are ok or not?
I think this is a legitimate question. But to be honest, despite what any of us think, it should probably be answered by whoever "legally is" Archlinux. Aaron, perhaps?
No need. Because... * Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Retail" PKGBUILD that retrieves an archive containing cracked executables is WRONG. * Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Retail" PKGBUILD that does not retrieve anything but has the file name of the archive containing cracked executables as a source is WRONG. * Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Runtime" PKGBUILD that retrieves an official *redistributable* archive containing clean executables is RIGHT. * Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Demo" PKGBUID that retrieves an official *non-redistributable* archive containing clean executables is WRONG. * Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Demo" PKGBUILD that does not retrieve anything but has the file name of the official *non-redistributable* archive containing clean executables as source is RIGHT. Think of the these as a template checklist for your next AUR restricted contribution, i.e apply where applicable. Abandonware is nothing special. Some may be redistributed freely, some not. When not, don't. Simple. I agree that we need to have some sort of black and white on this, so I've made a simple addition to the FAQ: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Q:_What_kind_of_pa... -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10