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

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Tue Feb 19 12:12:03 EST 2008

On Feb 18, 2008 10:21 PM,  <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, w9ya at qrparci.net wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > What packages are you referring to?  Do you have a list?
> Thanks for writing;
> In fact I found one such package in the first 45 seconds I went to look
> for such things. I found a similar package with a little bit more work,
> but not much more than a minute or two and some piping. i.e. Finding them
> would not be any more difficult than it was for the fella that found
> google-earth in the community repo and brought it to the attention of this
> email list within mere hours of my placing into the repo.
> BUT any list I would have is certainly NOT going to be exhaustive or even
> indicative of ANYTHING. i.e. I am the WRONG person to ask. Perhaps asking
> the fellow that found google-earth for some of the other packages that
> also have similar to essentially the same restrictions on distribution,
> copying,  usage and/or handling might be a great idea !
> Perhaps it is also a good time to properly define what kinds of things
> would be on such a list ? At one time, many years ago this was defined for
> Arch. But, of course, there is a much different group of developers and so
> forth now. And many things were allowed many years ago that might well be
> no welcomed if google-earth's restrictions and it's subsequent removal are
> to be a form of milestone today. <- Again it is hardly my place to decide
> such things, so I would very much prefer not to be asked for any more
> opinion on this matter of what kinds of things are to be allowed or not.
> If it WAS my decision then once something concrete is decided as to what
> will be SPECIFICALLY allowed in the matter of non-free distribution, copy,
> or usage restrictions; someone could then go into the four binary repos
> and weed those things out. <- Which I am guess is what you are after when
> you ask me for a list of what I had found. Again, it is NOT my place to be
> involved in such decisions OR actions.
> Of course, and as I have mentioned before in this matter, these thoughts
> of what MIGHT be done are merely my opinions and I have absolutely no
> desire to lead in any way with these matters.
> Again, I would like to also thank both you and the group here for being so
> polite to date with this matter. I could well imagine other less
> attractive ways of handling this matter so I appreciate that this was
> handled with proper and kindly restraint of emotions. In fact, I
> appreciate it very much.


Eric, he is right in the sense that we have *some* non-free packages,
but our list is really small:
acroread has odd redistribution rules
the msfonts are iffy, last I checked, but that may have changed
the codecs package is still in the repos
Hmmm... we got rid of ion3 and the only binary-only packages we have
left are video drivers....
I'm at a loss pulling from memory

More information about the aur-general mailing list