On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 07:23:52PM +0200, 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.

If he thinks the package should be deleted, he can submit a deletion request like everyone else. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16

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] 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

On Mon, 21 May 2018 23:17:39 -0400 Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:

All this being said:

[11:07:23 PM] 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

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.

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. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User