On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 13:39, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

Peter Lewis wrote: [...] I don't see the point. AUR packages do not redistribute anything. They contain URLs themselves.

I'm guessing the point would be that there have been several legal cases brought against people involved in distributing URLs to material that can't be freely distributed itself. /M -- Magnus Therning                      OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@therning.org   jabber: magnus@therning.org twitter: magthe               http://therning.org/magnus

Hmm I didn't want it to come to this. I never want it as a TGN. Im going to try to answer some things. Peter Lewis wrote:

Hi. Please don't break threads though by starting new ones.

Sorry. Since this was a more formal request, and I thought it was necessary to put it on its own thread. Next time I won't. "Sven-Hendrik Haase" wrote:

I don't see the point. AUR packages do not redistribute anything. They contain URLs themselves.

Karol Blazewicz wrote:

I'm guessing the point would be that there have been several legal cases brought against people involved in distributing URLs to material that can't be freely distributed itself.

Well yes, thats the point. It MAY be bad for aur.archlinux.org doing the same thing that have been used to close down torrent servers. Torrents only contain address and certain text, still there are lots of legal problems with them. The point is to avoid a gray area making a strict rule to forbid (or allow) those kind of pkgbuilds instead of just expecting the use of common sense from all aur users. Karol Blazewicz wrote:

I think it's OK to provide an installer w/o any kind of link to the proprietary package. It can provide a launcher or whatever.

Peter Lewis wrote:

Just do what Ionut suggested earlier, put the name of the downloaded file in the source array, but without the URL, so that users have to already have or download the file themselves before running makepkg.

Thats perfect! (and I really like this solution) The point of the thread is a request to add a rule to avoid a gray area. If the rule is "pkgbuilds to install abandoware or any warez is not allowed, in no way" fine, it works. OR if the rule is "pkgbuilds to install abandoware or any warez are ok as long they don't have a link to a file which distribution is not allowed (warez), so the user has to get the file on their own" thats perfect! it works too. IF the rule is "any kind of pkgbuilds are allowed, as they are only recipes and they are responability of the uploader" which means you think a url to whatever warez is not a bad thing, well, in my opinion is not the best choice, but STILL works. At least in that case, there would be a official position. Because the problem is that right now, is more opinion based than anything. Yesterday I asked for the deletion of a package for doom2 (which is not allowed to distribution) and it got deleted. Today there is a petition to "undelete" it, including something about changing it to not contain urls. (yes, I know is not about undelete it or not; that person can just recreate it.) My point is, me asking yesterday for a deletion for warez and getting it deleted and today someone asking for undeletion, is because arch has no official position about this matter. The way things are now. if I ask for another deletion and a TU who agrees with me is here, is gonna be deleted. But, if only TUs who disagree with me are around, then my petition is gonna be rejected. If I create a pkgbuild to point to a warez url, is somehow in a uncertain area; it may be deleted or it may not. 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?

On 28 October 2011 23:55, Peter Lewis 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

Thank you very much for your help :) I really think AUR should not be like a torrent site. Im not a moralist, and I have used abandonware myself. XD But I really think aur is not the place for that, and of course, is not the place for "office ultrawarez full editon 2011" (lol) but it can be the place for a demo edition. thank you Ray rashif for helping to clarify this, and thank you to everyone :D --- El vie 28-oct-11, Ray Rashif escribió:

...

* Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Demo" PKGBUID

De: Ray Rashif Asunto: Re: [aur-general] Request to add a rule A: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" Fecha: viernes, 28 de octubre de 2011, 17:29 On 29 October 2011 06:14, Ray Rashif wrote: that retrieves an

...

official *non-redistributable* archive containing clean executables is WRONG.

Ammendment to this part:

* Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Demo" PKGBUILD that retrieves *from a third-party site* an official *non-redistributable* archive containing clean executables is WRONG.

* Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Demo" PKGBUILD that retrieves *from the official site* an official *non-redistributable* archive containing clean executables is RIGHT, *unless linking from third-party sites is explicitly forbidden*.

-- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10