[aur-general] Fwd: Stolen material
Hey guys, I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point a few things out: Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear. That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we DON'T want). b) The original tarball no longer exists. c) I have seen no proof of copyright. Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to be more careful here. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Northcott <richard@enfour.co.jp> Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:03 AM Subject: Stolen material To: aaron@archlinux.org, jvinet@zeroflux.org This is stolen copyrighted material. Please remove. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/stardict-longman/ Richard Northcott Enfour,Inc. Tokyo
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Aaron Hussein Griffin < aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey guys,
I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point a few things out:
Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear.
That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we DON'T want). b) The original tarball no longer exists. c) I have seen no proof of copyright.
Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to be more careful here.
although the COPYING file it's wrong, isn't this the same "trick" we use with acroread?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Imanol Celaya <ornitorrincos@archlinux-es.org> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Aaron Hussein Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey guys,
I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point a few things out:
Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear.
That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we DON'T want). b) The original tarball no longer exists. c) I have seen no proof of copyright.
Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to be more careful here.
although the COPYING file it's wrong, isn't this the same "trick" we use with acroread?
Not necessarily. acroread says that anyone may download it but may not redistribute it. Therefore, when a user runs makepkg, they're doing completely what is expected of them. Downloading it and installing without redistributing it at all. If I had to guess, the original package here had no such license.
On Fri 2008-10-31 19:45, Imanol Celaya wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Aaron Hussein Griffin < aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey guys,
I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point a few things out:
Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear.
That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we DON'T want). b) The original tarball no longer exists. c) I have seen no proof of copyright.
Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to be more careful here.
although the COPYING file it's wrong, isn't this the same "trick" we use with acroread?
I agree, there is a lot of stuff like that (not redistributable) in AUR and I don't see why it shouldn't stay there. There is no copyright infringement IMHO. In this case the author explicitly asked to remove the PKGBUILD, so I think it should be removed to avoid legal actions against Arch Linux, but it should be stated publicly that the author is a fucktard^W^W wrong. -- Alessio (molok) Bolognino
Theres nothing wrong about the license in my eyes because it is like Ondřej Kučera said: The User is allowed to download the source and compile it. No problem with the PKGBUILD as guide to install. So in this way only the install-script is important: Are you allowed to alter the code but nt to redistribute this changed version etc. This would mean that it isn't possible to include the package into the community-repo. 2008/10/31 Alessio Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com>:
On Fri 2008-10-31 19:45, Imanol Celaya wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Aaron Hussein Griffin < aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey guys,
I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point a few things out:
Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear.
That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we DON'T want). b) The original tarball no longer exists. c) I have seen no proof of copyright.
Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to be more careful here.
although the COPYING file it's wrong, isn't this the same "trick" we use with acroread?
I agree, there is a lot of stuff like that (not redistributable) in AUR and I don't see why it shouldn't stay there. There is no copyright infringement IMHO.
In this case the author explicitly asked to remove the PKGBUILD, so I think it should be removed to avoid legal actions against Arch Linux, but it should be stated publicly that the author is a fucktard^W^W wrong.
-- Alessio (molok) Bolognino
Imanol Celaya schrieb:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Aaron Hussein Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com <mailto:aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hey guys,
I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point a few things out:
Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear.
That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we DON'T want). b) The original tarball no longer exists. c) I have seen no proof of copyright.
Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to be more careful here.
although the COPYING file it's wrong, isn't this the same "trick" we use with acroread?
Heya @all, am I the only one who sees the "Licensed under GPL TERMS." with a link to the GPL V3 at the sf.net-site and what about the possibility to d/l the source code at "http://stardict.sourceforge.net/other.php"? Doesnt that mean that Arch may distribute it as well? Personally I think its just a hoax/spam. Just my $2.. Have a good time and keep up the good work, enni | telsh -- "Es ist sinnlos zu sagen: Wir tun unser Bestes. Es muß dir gelingen, das zu tun, was erforderlich ist." -- Winston Churchill
Hi, Enrico Scichilone wrote:
Heya @all, am I the only one who sees the "Licensed under GPL TERMS." with a link to the GPL V3 at the sf.net-site and what about the possibility to d/l the source code at "http://stardict.sourceforge.net/other.php"? Doesnt that mean that Arch may distribute it as well?
No, you're not. But that means the Stardict software itself is released under GPL, the talk is about one specific dictionary for Stardict and that dictionary is not released under GPL. Ondřej -- Cheers, Ondřej Kučera
Hi, Aaron "Hussein" Griffin wrote:
Hey guys,
I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point a few things out:
Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear.
That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we DON'T want). b) The original tarball no longer exists. c) I have seen no proof of copyright.
Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to be more careful here.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Northcott <richard@enfour.co.jp> Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:03 AM Subject: Stolen material To: aaron@archlinux.org, jvinet@zeroflux.org
This is stolen copyrighted material. Please remove.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/stardict-longman/
Richard Northcott Enfour,Inc. Tokyo
I don't understand it for several reasons. Some of them might be because the copyright law is different in different countries. BUT - let's assume for the sake of argument that there exist a piece of software (not necessarily this one) that a user is allowed to download, compile and then use (or just download a binary and then use) but no one is allowed to redistribute the original tarball or any other tarball with this software. Here I don't understand your point a) - why is the end user liable (and who is the end user exactly - the one who uploaded the PKGBUILD, or the one who used it?)? As you said - a PKGBUILD is just a PKGBUILD - simply a guide of how to download and install the software, nothing more. I'm very much sure that an existence of such a guide is by no means illegal in my country so here "we" (or "you") WOULD be in the clear. I just cannot see how anyone can be liable for such a guide. But maybe in other countries the law is stricter (and more ridiculous? - though I wouldn't be surprised...). Second, when you look here - http://stardict.sourceforge.net/Dictionaries_dictd-www.dict.org.php - you'll see the "free to use" phrase, so it's not something the packager in AUR made up (and the package can be downloaded, so the tarball still exists, unfortunately it doesn't contain any useful information about a license). Now the question is - what is the relationship between Stardict itself and this particular dictionary. If the dictionary belongs to the same people who run the site where it is downloadable from, then it's their own fault that they have misleading terms of usage. If it does not, then either people from Stardict have it there downloadable against the wishes of its owners, which means that Mr. Northcott needs to write to them, not to you, or it is really free to download and use, which means that there's nothing wrong with the PKGBUILD. By the way, I tried to find out more about this particular dictionary, find its home page for example - without success, instead I found out that rpmfind.net has an RPM for it (http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/sourceforge/s/st/stardict/stardict-longman-2.4....) and that they claim it is GPLed (probably mistake on their side but I wonder whether or not Mr. Northcott contacted them too). All of the above just my opinion though, of course. Ondřej -- Cheers, Ondřej Kučera
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 08:14:04PM +0100, Ondřej Kučera wrote:
By the way, I tried to find out more about this particular dictionary, find its home page for example - without success, instead I found out that rpmfind.net has an RPM for it (http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/sourceforge/s/st/stardict/stardict-longman-2.4....) and that they claim it is GPLed (probably mistake on their side but I wonder whether or not Mr. Northcott contacted them too).
I think the dictionary being referred to is this: http://www.ldoceonline.com/ And here's the copyright notice: http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/Legalnotice/
Hi, Loui wrote:
I think the dictionary being referred to is this: http://www.ldoceonline.com/
Yes, that would be the online version of the dictionary.
And here's the copyright notice: http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/Legalnotice/
The first two sentences ("These terms and conditions apply to you regarding the material on this Website. You are responsible for bringing these terms to the attention of anyone who may read material on this site as a result of your access to it.") in my opinion say that those terms apply only to anything on that site. The offline dictionary itself is not downloadable from there (or at least I didn't find it there) so, I don't think these particular terms are relevant to the case. Ondřej -- Cheers, Ondřej Kučera
Aaron "Hussein" Griffin wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Northcott <richard@enfour.co.jp> Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:03 AM Subject: Stolen material To: aaron@archlinux.org, jvinet@zeroflux.org
This is stolen copyrighted material. Please remove.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/stardict-longman/
Richard Northcott Enfour,Inc. Tokyo
I'd say kindly ask him to forward his request to the StarDict project, where the dictionary files are actually hosted on.
2008/10/31 Aaron Hussein Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
Hey guys,
I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point a few things out:
Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear.
That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we DON'T want). b) The original tarball no longer exists. c) I have seen no proof of copyright.
Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to be more careful here.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Northcott <richard@enfour.co.jp> Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:03 AM Subject: Stolen material To: aaron@archlinux.org, jvinet@zeroflux.org
This is stolen copyrighted material. Please remove.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/stardict-longman/
Richard Northcott Enfour,Inc. Tokyo
I'm well confused here. We haven't "taken" anything at all, we've provided a link to the software. I think he thinks the tarball in that AUR is the source, which it isn't. I think you should ask exactly what he thinks we have stolen.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton <dibblethewrecker@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/10/31 Aaron Hussein Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
Hey guys,
I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point a few things out:
Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear.
That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we DON'T want). b) The original tarball no longer exists. c) I have seen no proof of copyright.
Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to be more careful here.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Northcott <richard@enfour.co.jp> Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:03 AM Subject: Stolen material To: aaron@archlinux.org, jvinet@zeroflux.org
This is stolen copyrighted material. Please remove.
http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/stardict-longman/
Richard Northcott Enfour,Inc. Tokyo
I'm well confused here. We haven't "taken" anything at all, we've provided a link to the software. I think he thinks the tarball in that AUR is the source, which it isn't. I think you should ask exactly what he thinks we have stolen.
To be clear, I've responded to the guy, but never got anything back. I simply asked for proof of the copyright ownership.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Phil Dillon-Thiselton
I'm well confused here. We haven't "taken" anything at all, we've provided a link to the software. I think he thinks the tarball in that AUR is the source, which it isn't. I think you should ask exactly what he thinks we have stolen.
To be clear, I've responded to the guy, but never got anything back. I simply asked for proof of the copyright ownership.
Sounds adequate to me...and I agree with Phil, we haven't provided any software therefore I see no possibility of infringement even they do have proof of ownership. If the package were in core/extra/community then we may have a problem, but I will forever defend our right to provide a PKGBUILD regardless of license.
participants (11)
-
Aaron "Hussein" Griffin
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Alessio Bolognino
-
Christian Scharkus
-
Enrico Scichilone
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Imanol Celaya
-
Loui
-
Ondřej Kučera
-
Phil Dillon-Thiselton
-
Thayer Williams