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

[Eli Schwartz]

On 6/2/19 2:59 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
> 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.

Cool -- if you have that permission, then there's no reason not to put
it in the AUR package too, though. :)

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20190602/434b20f9/attachment.sig>