[aur-general] Package of Questionable Legality
Free-cinema [1], appears to be of very questionable legality. It appears that it was designed specifically to be used for pirating movies. I don't know what the protocol is for dealing with this, just thought it was worth reporting.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/free-cinema/
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Sam Stuewe halosghost@archlinux.info wrote:
Free-cinema [1], appears to be of very questionable legality. It appears that it was designed specifically to be used for pirating movies. I don't know what the protocol is for dealing with this, just thought it was worth reporting.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/free-cinema/
-- All the best, Sam Stuewe (HalosGhost)
Upstream url: http://kaveensblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/pirate-movie-downloader-for-linu...
Free-cinema [1], appears to be of very questionable legality. It appears that it was designed specifically to be used for pirating movies. I don't know what the protocol is for dealing with this, just thought it was worth reporting.
Downloading a movie, at least in Poland, is totally legal as long as you own a legal copy. Working DRM around is legal in such case as well.
If you want to remove a package that does something illegal, AFAIK Lame MP3 Encoder would have to be removed from the repo because of some patents infringements.
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 06:21:01PM +0100, Nowaker wrote:
Downloading a movie, at least in Poland, is totally legal as long as you own a legal copy. Working DRM around is legal in such case as well.
The relevant point for the present case of the movie downloading tool is that the upstream source markets it as being *intended* for illegal use.
-Jesse AKA 'Trilby'
"[...] so i created this 27 line program to do it for me and it automatically adds the torrent to my torrent client."
This package is not and doesn't do any illegal!
Though, if you download (via torrent) something your country deems is illegal you're responsible - and if you download (via torrent) something your country doesn't care of, you will be happy using it.
It really depends on where you live....
On 1 February 2014 23:05, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com wrote:
"[...] so i created this 27 line program to do it for me and it automatically adds the torrent to my torrent client."
This package is not and doesn't do any illegal!
Though, if you download (via torrent) something your country deems is illegal you're responsible - and if you download (via torrent) something your country doesn't care of, you will be happy using it.
It really depends on where you live....
I think it depends more on where the AUR is hosted. Lets not forget that the MPAA, seems to think that they can sue anyone, anywhere, for anything they feel adversely affects their profit margins.
When somebody markets their software/script/whatever as a "pirate movie downloader", I think we should probably avoid packaging it.
WorMzy
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:52 PM, WorMzy Tykashi wormzy.tykashi@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2014 23:05, Rob Til Freedmen rob.til.freedman@gmail.com wrote:
"[...] so i created this 27 line program to do it for me and it automatically adds the torrent to my torrent client."
This package is not and doesn't do any illegal!
Though, if you download (via torrent) something your country deems is illegal you're responsible - and if you download (via torrent) something your country doesn't care of, you will be happy using it.
It really depends on where you live....
I think it depends more on where the AUR is hosted. Lets not forget that the MPAA, seems to think that they can sue anyone, anywhere, for anything they feel adversely affects their profit margins.
When somebody markets their software/script/whatever as a "pirate movie downloader", I think we should probably avoid packaging it.
WorMzy
Assuming IP geolocation is accurate, the AUR is hosted in Germany.
This doesn't matter though. The AUR does not host any software that may or may not be used for copyright infringement. The AUR is simply a collection of build scripts. If free-cinema was in [extra] or [community], then this _might_ be worth investigating because Arch---and its mirrors---would be hosting the software in question.
However, considering that libdvdcss is provided in [extra] and dvdbackup is provided in [community], I don't think this is anything for us to be concerned with.
Jason
On 2014-02-01 21:04, Jason St. John wrote:
However, considering that libdvdcss is provided in [extra] and dvdbackup is provided in [community], I don't think this is anything for us to be concerned with.
Totally valid point. I am fine with this decision, I just wanted to make sure that the conversation was had :)
Hi all!
So say I have package A which is installed with a "Drivers" folder under /usr/lib/PACKAGE_A/. This package then would have an optional dependency on another standalone library (pakage B) to provide a certain driver. To make package A work properly with the optional package B, either a symlink or direct copy of a libBBB.so file needs to be made. i.e.
/usr/lib/PACKAGE_A/Drivers/libBBB.so -> /usr/lib/PACKAGE_B/libBBB.so
So my question is, what is the best way to make this happen? Do I provide a *.install file for PACKAGE_A that tries to see if PACKAGE_B exists and then link the files if so? What should happen if PACKAGE_B is installed after PACKAGE_A?
For reference PACKAGE_A is openni2 (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/openni2) and PACKAGE_B is libfreenect-git (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libfreenect-git/). Currently they are not tied to each other, but I would like to make it possible for openni2 to optionally? depend on a driver provided by libfreenect.
Regards, Andrew
First off, please don't hijack threads in the list; refrain from using reply-to when starting a new discussion!
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:02:53PM -0700, Andrew DeMaria wrote:
Hi all!
So say I have package A which is installed with a "Drivers" folder under /usr/lib/PACKAGE_A/. This package then would have an optional dependency on another standalone library (pakage B) to provide a certain driver. To make package A work properly with the optional package B, either a symlink or direct copy of a libBBB.so file needs to be made. i.e.
/usr/lib/PACKAGE_A/Drivers/libBBB.so -> /usr/lib/PACKAGE_B/libBBB.so
So my question is, what is the best way to make this happen? Do I provide a *.install file for PACKAGE_A that tries to see if PACKAGE_B exists and then link the files if so? What should happen if PACKAGE_B is installed after PACKAGE_A?
For reference PACKAGE_A is openni2 (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/openni2) and PACKAGE_B is libfreenect-git (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libfreenect-git/). Currently they are not tied to each other, but I would like to make it possible for openni2 to optionally? depend on a driver provided by libfreenect.
In PKGBUILDs you can either depend (place a package in the 'depends' array) on a package, or optionally depend (place a package in the 'optdepends' array) on a package. The crucial thing to realise is that in order to use 'optdepends' the built package must be able to determine at runtime whether the optional dependencies are present and if so make use of them.
With this in mind it sounds like what you need is two openni2 packages, one that
- doesn't depend on libfreenect-git - configures openni2 at build time to NOT use (i.e. link against) libfreenect
and one that
- does depend on libfreenect-git - configures openni2 at build to use (i.e. link against) libfreenect
/M
On 02/02/2014 12:12 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
First off, please don't hijack threads in the list; refrain from using reply-to when starting a new discussion!
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:02:53PM -0700, Andrew DeMaria wrote:
Hi all!
So say I have package A which is installed with a "Drivers" folder under /usr/lib/PACKAGE_A/. This package then would have an optional dependency on another standalone library (pakage B) to provide a certain driver. To make package A work properly with the optional package B, either a symlink or direct copy of a libBBB.so file needs to be made. i.e.
/usr/lib/PACKAGE_A/Drivers/libBBB.so -> /usr/lib/PACKAGE_B/libBBB.so
So my question is, what is the best way to make this happen? Do I provide a *.install file for PACKAGE_A that tries to see if PACKAGE_B exists and then link the files if so? What should happen if PACKAGE_B is installed after PACKAGE_A?
For reference PACKAGE_A is openni2 (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/openni2) and PACKAGE_B is libfreenect-git (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libfreenect-git/). Currently they are not tied to each other, but I would like to make it possible for openni2 to optionally? depend on a driver provided by libfreenect.
In PKGBUILDs you can either depend (place a package in the 'depends' array) on a package, or optionally depend (place a package in the 'optdepends' array) on a package. The crucial thing to realise is that in order to use 'optdepends' the built package must be able to determine at runtime whether the optional dependencies are present and if so make use of them.
With this in mind it sounds like what you need is two openni2 packages, one that
- doesn't depend on libfreenect-git
- configures openni2 at build time to NOT use (i.e. link against) libfreenect
and one that
- does depend on libfreenect-git
- configures openni2 at build to use (i.e. link against) libfreenect
/M
Whoops. Sorry for messing up the threads. And that makes sense, thank you! I do have a couple more questions, but will post in a new thread.
This doesn't matter though. The AUR does not host any software that may or may not be used for copyright infringement. The AUR is simply a collection of build scripts.
Keep in mind that this exact argument was used by The Pirate Bay in Swedish court, and they were struck down for "facilitation of copyright infringement" if I recall correctly. I don't doubt that the proportion of illegal activity is substantially greater for The Pirate Bay than for the AUR, but what's the real difference except that they also made money from ads?
I'm not saying it's wrong to allow the package in question, I just wanted to point this out. And even if this would tick someone off I doubt anyone would bother taking Arch to court for something like this anytime soon.
/Emil
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Emil Lundberg lundberg.emil@gmail.com wrote:
This doesn't matter though. The AUR does not host any software that may or may not be used for copyright infringement. The AUR is simply a collection of build scripts.
Keep in mind that this exact argument was used by The Pirate Bay in Swedish court, and they were struck down for "facilitation of copyright infringement" if I recall correctly. I don't doubt that the proportion of illegal activity is substantially greater for The Pirate Bay than for the AUR, but what's the real difference except that they also made money from ads?
I'm not saying it's wrong to allow the package in question, I just wanted to point this out. And even if this would tick someone off I doubt anyone would bother taking Arch to court for something like this anytime soon.
/Emil
We had a discussion about "warez in the AUR" a few times: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016268.html https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016282.html https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2012-January/017268.html
If you can legally buy a game (e.g. on gog.com), should the AUR package be allowed to download the source (game data, not the source code) from abandonia.com and friends?
participants (10)
-
Andrew DeMaria
-
Emil Lundberg
-
Jason St. John
-
Jesse McClure
-
Karol Blazewicz
-
Magnus Therning
-
Nowaker
-
Rob Til Freedmen
-
Sam Stuewe
-
WorMzy Tykashi