[aur-dev] AUR 4 and licensing

[Gordian Edenhofer]

Besides GNOME handles extension the same way. The creater/maintainer just
ticks a box which states "I verify that my extension can be distributed
under the terms of the GPLv2+ ". Furthermore many big companies treat their
agreements similar. Accepting a license by a click of a button should be
fine IMHO.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Gordian Edenhofer <
gordian.edenhofer at gmail.com> wrote:

> If everything in the git-repo would be GPL licensed than forking should be
> no problem since we could just place one copy in the main tree.
> Nevertheless you idea is worth considering but it might be problematic
> because this header must be in every patch, install-script etc.
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Joris Steyn <jorissteyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I like this idea, but I don't think it's sound to consider something
>> GPL-licensed because the author checked a box or accepted the TOC. I doubt
>> that has any legal significance.
>>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to use a mandatory two-line header like below?
>> The pre-receive hook could enforce that.
>>
>> # Copyright [year or year range] [author name]
>> # Distributed under the terms of the [license name]
>>
>> This is what Gentoo does for ebuilds in its package database. This way the
>> licensing information isn't lost when the repository is forked.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 4:46 PM, David Manouchehri <
>> david at davidmanouchehri.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Lukas Fleischer <lfleischer at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> > > In order to `git push` a package repository, you need to add your SSH
>> > > public key to the AUR profile which means you need to log into the web
>> > > interface and accept the ToS. No need for something complicated
>> > > involving Git hooks and email address filters.
>> >
>> > You're right, I forgot about that. The only real purpose of having a
>> hook
>> > would just be to serve as a reminder.
>> >
>> > Johannes L?thberg <johannes at kyriasis.com> wrote:
>> > > This is Git, not SVN.
>> >
>> > Sorry, I mixed my hooks up. Didn't mean to start a fight with that one.
>> > Both Johannes and Dan are right; it's impossible to have a pre-commit
>> hook
>> > on the server side, but it's entirely possible to have a pre-receive
>> hook
>> > on the server side. I believe both would have the same result if you put
>> > `exit 1` in them though (failing to apply commit).
>> >
>>
>
>