[aur-general] license issues with google-earth in [community]?

[w9ya at qrparci.net]

Comments at the end.

> On Feb 18, 2008 11:13 PM,  <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 18, 2008 6:37 PM,  <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> AND this package was removed *altogether* but NOT by me, and
>> certainly before I could have responded. <- That is perfectly fine
>> with me. Under the circumstances I fully agree. I would *also* be
>> happy to replace it in unsupported, as apparently it has been
>> determined to NOT have it in any repo.
>> > as I said, I untagged them, I did not remove them. They should still
>> be in your cvs checkout.
>>
>>
>> Hey again;
>>
>> Well, yes it *is* still in the cvs, BUT it is *not* available from my
>> AUR account so it appears to be removed from manipulation from that
>> context. (And I would NOT have thought to look at the CVS, as
>> manipulation from there to the AUR is not clear to me. (More on that
>> below.)
>>
>> SO...that brings up two problems (for me);
>>
>> 1 - How does one get this "restored" to the AUR (unsupported) as
>> opposed to merely re-tagging it into the community repo ? I ask this
>> because I am NOT sure how things are either done *OR* laid out. (As
>> far as I can determine, from this location, things are not stored the
>> same. More importantly since I cannot get to this package from the AUR
>> web interface it is not clear to me how a restore other than starting
>> over is to take place.)
>>
>> 2 - Will a procedure you provide me restore the 250 some odd votes
>> this package received ?
>>
>> -Please feel free to take this private, if there is any "sensitive"
>> information you will be needing to impart to me.
>>
>> TIA for some answers and
>>
>> Very best regards;
>>
>> Bob Finch
>>
>> Liviu Librescu - În veci pomenirea lui.
>> (May his memory be eternal.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> No sorry, AFAIK the votes are lost ones a package moves back from
> [community] to unsupported (maybe this would be a good feature
> addition for coming AUR releases, thinking of it).
>
> Let me explain. I untagged it because the license was questionable.
> Untagging it will keep the files on the server, so one can either
> re-tag it (using 'cvs tag') , or still get the files before putting it
> back in unsupported. That way not all hard work is lost.
>
> What you should do after logging in onto the cvs server, is first
> getting the PKGBUILD and other files required for you to upload it to
> unsupported again. After you have all files on your local harddrive,
> remove the package from cvs using from WITHIN THE PACKAGE DIRECTORY:
>
> cvs rm -fl
> cvs commit
>
> After this you can upload it to unsupported as one would normally do.
>
> For reference, see
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines,
> especially the part on Deleting packages from [community].
>
> If you have still any questions, feel free to contact me directly.
>
> Best,
> Ronald

Thanks Ronald for the explanation.

AND O.K.... all of that cvs stuff is exactly what I (already) know about.
One more wrinkle though; I have never submitted to the AUR as a non-TU !!
My *guess* is that I do THAT from the web interface.

If I have a problem with the AUR, I will be sure to ask for info on how to
get stuff into the AUR section of the system.

ON THE REMOVAL SPECIFICALLY;

As I said above, the bruehaha on the internet surrounding this particular
package's license is both interesting and enough to have even ME (now)
agreeing that it most likely does not belong in binary repos. BUT my
aggreement in this matter is *not* because of what the license prohibits,
but that no one is really sure what it prohibits as it is poorly worded.
Situations have cropped up that have the exact same legal team agreeing at
first that a business CAN run this software, and then stating that it
needs to be removed immediately. And there are other situations like GPL
coding being distributed with this package BY GOOGLE themselves. It sure
seems like this is basically an ill defined mess that google has managed
to create.

More to the point: Arch *does* have packages in the binary repos with
licensing provisions of much the same limitations as those quoted in the
discussions here in this thread about google-earth. And I am speaking
about stuff that specifically does NOT allow copying across a network for
distribution purposes and/or business use et al, single machine, no laptop
mobile use and so forth. AND while these packages are not allowed in
Debian for the same reasons as was mentioned in the latest emails herein
concerning google-earth ArchLinux DOES have them RIGHT NOW in the binary
repos.

SO.... *IF* this was pulled because it has a "non-free" license, that
should NOT have been such a reflexive action IMHO, again in as much as
Arch has plenty of those kinds of packages already in the binary repos.

But that is merely my opinion, and perhaps it isn't worth much.

Very best regards;

Bob Finch