[aur-general] SGE has copyright violation
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:02 AM
Request #21898 has been rejected by Foxboron [1]:
Not interested. The sge package is not going to point at your fork.
Thanks a lot for the reply! But I never ask the current maintainer to point to my fork. I guess those markdown syntax messed it up. This package is in clear text-book copyright violation right now! The current maintainer is using my original SGE source code patch file without mentioning I am the patch's author and University of Michigan's copyright. Further, he split it into many patch files, now those modifications look to be his contribution as nobody will dig into git history, not to mention patching with many files is the worst way to promote a software. I believe I am the first one in the world who made SGE work under the latest SSL and GLIBC. I created the single source code patch file, and initially put it on AUR sge. I also tried to settle with the current maintainer, I proposed that he can keep the package but he has to use my single patch file with the copyright and author on the top, then remove my name from the PKGBUILD file. He rejected me. Now here are all the facts, could you please reconsider it again? 1, I am the original author of the SGE source code patch file, I put my source code patch file on AUR sge. 2. I didn't receive any email notification before the package was taken over, This is confirmed by a TU 3, I didn't join AUR-general before the package was taken over, and the same TU confirmed that this is not required. 4, I tried to settle with the current maintainer, and asked him to respect Copyright and original author, he rejected me. 5, The current maintainer's PKGBUILD doesn't work, and he 'git push' three times anyway, while knowing it fails. It took him 7 days to fix a 'cd' error. Everything above are true facts, and it can be verified in court, and I am willing to take any penalty if they are not fact. Now, the simple question is, can any original work put on AUR be taken away like this? Best, Manhong
On 24/10/2020 14.36, Manhong Dai via aur-general wrote:
This package is in clear text-book copyright violation right now! The current maintainer is using my original SGE source code patch file without mentioning I am the patch's author and University of Michigan's copyright.
I also tried to settle with the current maintainer, I proposed that he can keep the package but he has to use my single patch file with the copyright and author on the top, then remove my name from the PKGBUILD file. He rejected me.
Sounds to me that what you should do is create a deletion request, but I could be wrong though. - Ben aka silentnoodle
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 9:28 AM Ben Lönnqvist via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 24/10/2020 14.36, Manhong Dai via aur-general wrote:
This package is in clear text-book copyright violation right now! The current maintainer is using my original SGE source code patch file without mentioning I am the patch's author and University of Michigan's copyright.
I also tried to settle with the current maintainer, I proposed that he can keep the package but he has to use my single patch file with the copyright and author on the top, then remove my name from the PKGBUILD file. He rejected me.
Sounds to me that what you should do is create a deletion request, but I could be wrong though.
- Ben aka silentnoodle
That is true! I already submitted a delete request right after submitting the email.
participants (2)
-
Ben Lönnqvist
-
Manhong Dai