[arch-dev-public] bringing vivaldi browser to community

[Ike Devolder]

On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 22:11 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> On 6/1/19 5:43 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > On 2/6/19 1:53 am, Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > > > You don't seem to
> > > > explain why you need to ask in your email.
> > > 
> > > Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid
> > > reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no
> > > difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera.
> > > 
> > 
> > Does the license allow us to have it in the repos?  After a quick
> > look,
> > I'd say no.
> 
> The license for the AUR package appears to be somehow extracted using
> /usr/bin/strings from one of the binary files in the software
> download.
> 
> Assuming it's the same as the one here:
> https://vivaldi.com/privacy/vivaldi-end-user-license-agreement/
> 
> It's absolutely illegal to redistribute it. As per the pinned comment
> on
> the AUR package, it is also available and illegally redistributed as
> a
> repackaged pacman package here: https://repo.herecura.eu/
> This should probably be removed too.
> 
> Note: there are other proprietary packages shipped in the Arch repos,
> but on the unusual occasion where we deem it fitting to provide such
> software, we have written authorization from the rights-holders to do
> so.
> As far as I can tell, that is not the case here. If and when it is
> the
> case here, that permission can be added to the
> /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ directory of the vivaldi package in
> the
> AUR, to signify that the prebuilt packages are legally
> redistributable,
> either in personally hosted repos or [community].
> 
> See the teamspeak3 package for an example implementation.
> https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION.eml?h=packages/teamspeak3
> 
> ...
> 
> Just because we are not an FSDG distribution which prays at the altar
> of
> Richard Stallman doesn't mean licensing is some sort of silly joke
> that
> no one cares about.
> 
> And I don't think it makes sense to say this matters less, if it's
> being
> distributed from someone's personal repo instead of from a multi-
> member
> organization.
> 

If that's what it requires, I can get a written consent we can re-
distribute vivaldi. I asked them before putting it in my personal repo,
if I was allowed to do that.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20190602/ed143ade/attachment.sig>