On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 19:57 +0200, Evert Vorster wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 19:27, Manhong Dai via aur-general < aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 19:04 +0200, alad via aur-general wrote:
On 25/05/2021 18:58, Antoine Viallon via aur-general wrote:
25 mai 2021 16:42 "Genes Lists via aur-general" < aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> a écrit:
As an outside observer of this thread, it seems like the time for discussion is over. This talk appears to center largely about opinions on civil litigation.
Actually, this discussion could be important if the responsability of Arch could potentially be involved. Nobody wants the Arch project to be sued or to be liable in some way or another.
...and, as I said already, it was long established that Arch is not liable or involved in any way.
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2021-May/036236.html
But sure, let's keep talking about ways to obscure trivial patches
to
mitigate phantom copyright claims. I mean, really?
Alad
I beg to differ, as 'trivial' is subjective.
As long as a patch file includes a significant portion or essential part of the upstream code, it constitutes software redistribution, and subjects to Section 4 and 5 of GPLV3. The package maintainer/submitter is responsible.
Then, if AUR or even a TU is involved in anything related to the patch file, such as modifying the patch file, AUR will become liable too.
Filipe Laíns's opinion in your link is actually conforming to the GPL requirement, because he suggested to provide a notice, which should include copyright and warranty at a minimum.
On another note, I often notice that people in this list say a PKGBUILD file doesn't have copyright. IMHO, this opinion is wrong unless AUR'd Term of Services says that the user agrees to assign the PKGBUILD file copyright to AUR while using the service.
Just my two cents. Again, I am not lawyer and never made a cent with law. Instead, law made me lose quite some money.....
Just adding in my 2 cents. The lines of code in the patch file is not actual code, but markers.
To explain this to lawyer types that like splitting hairs but don't necessarily understand programming:
The patch program assumes you have the source that needs to be patched handy. This means that you must have obtained the source code to be patched before it can work, and is bound by the license of that software.
The lines in the patch file, while it LOOKS like source code, is actually never executed, and only serves as a marker as to where the changes are to be made. It is completely useless otherwise. The patch program would very happily edit plain text documents that are not code at all, and it does not even understand any programming language in itself.
In short, if you do not have the source code already, the patch won't make it for you. If you do have it, it obviously was distributed to you, and the lines in the patch only refers to a section of code you already have. So, the lines in the patch file are explicitly covered by the copyright of the source that is getting patched.
No one is pulling a fast one, and no source is being distributed without it's original licences.
I may not be a lawyer, but many highly paid lawyers have looked at patch files in great detail for decades, and could not find any reason to sue anyone that has made patch files, ever.
So, my unqualified position is that we are OK to distribute patches to make software work.
Kind regards, -Evert Vorster-
With all due respect, while the case quoted below says otherwise, it is very possible that your opinion is confirmed in other nations/courts/cases. 'A patch is nearly an exact copy of the main file of the computer program that contains the part of the code that interacts with the security device.' https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/128/1027/2298546... Best, Manhong