On 05/19/2018 01:23 PM, Fabio Loli via aur-general wrote:
Mattatobin, of which you can read here
https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86
Have made this (edited) comment in the AUR webpage asking for removal
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/basilisk You do realize this package is completely insane. I want you to remove any remaining Basilisk branding and use of the name including in the desktop file and this very package from AUR that you are obviously squatting on.
1) Pale Moon and everything that comes from there is gross. 2) There's no rule against gross things being in the AUR. If someone wants to maintain it, and users want to use it, that's their choice. 3) On the topic of license violations, I joined #palemoon on Freenode to try to clarify things... @mattatobin responded to me there. [10:11:52 PM] <eschwartz> so if I understand correctly, it is utterly forbidden to use the basilisk name in any way, shape or form, without exception, under any circumstances whatsoever, bar none? Then what is the purpose of having a trademark... [10:12:49 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> eschwartz: Your rights are clearly stated in the Mozilla Public License [10:13:03 PM] <eschwartz> so just to be clear, this is your objection? ^^ you don't allow any sort of use whatsoever, ever, no matter what, ever? [10:13:37 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> Not for Basilisk.. If you call it something else and don't use the word "Basilisk" but otherwise comply with the MPL.. well that is your business I'm completely unsure what to do with this information. I'm inclined to say that since we don't host source code, binaries, branding files, or indeed anything other than download URLs and compilation command lines, we're covered under the same rules that let us host PKGBUILDs for completely proprietary software, rather than basilisk where only the branding is proprietary. But it seems they disagree: [10:08:23 PM] <eschwartz> But I still don't see what it is doing wrong [10:08:29 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> because of the Pale Moon redist license [10:08:34 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> eschwartz: You don't have to [10:08:55 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> eschwartz: You merely have to comply with the Mozilla Public License [10:09:12 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> which does not grant any rights to the name "Basilisk" [10:09:27 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> You do NOT have the right to call it Basilisk in any form [10:09:29 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> simple as that [10:24:08 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> You are misrepresenting us is what you are doing.. [11:04:09 PM] <eschwartz> MoonchildPM|Away: I asked an hour ago, what is wrong with the build configuration and what you would prefer. I got flatly stonewalled, and told that NewTobinParadigm as a representative of the Pale Moon team was flatly asserting the trademark rights to unconditionally forbid its use, with the presumed logical conclusion that there is no build configuration other than -when-hell-freezes-over which would be acceptable. [11:04:37 PM] <eschwartz> then I got the output of `yes MPL` [11:04:56 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> Colorful [11:05:32 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> essentually true but not so dramatic [11:05:34 PM] <eschwartz> are you saying there is something this package could be doing, which would meet your approval? this is news to me Despite my repeated requests to know what, exactly, we are misrepresenting via this build, no one was inclined to say anything other than "you're in violation of the license, please delete everything". So as far as I can tell, this really and truly is entirely down to their complete unwillingness to see their name used at all, and not for any reason specific to this package. In which case I'm unsure why this is worse than distributing Spotify via an AUR package too. We'd need to establish a rule that proprietary software is completely forbidden from the AUR. ... which I pointed out, and was then told: [10:43:49 PM] <KlipKyle> eschwartz: you are distributing build scripts, like Gentoo ebuilds except less automation. The same rules apply. But Gentoo explicitly contains USE flags for proprietary-non-redistributable software, on the grounds that the user can choose whether they want to include non-redistributable code as a general thing on their built system (perhaps they want to redistribute the system as an ISO image or something). And anyway, we've got no rule against this AFAICT. ... 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 So if @bm456 would like to work with the Pale Moon team to establish a mutually satisfactory outcome, that would certainly be the most... effective solution. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User