[aur-general] Fwd: Stolen material

[Christian Scharkus]

Theres nothing wrong about the license in my eyes because it is like
Ondřej Kučera said: The User is allowed to download the source and
compile it. No problem with the PKGBUILD as guide to install. So in
this way only the install-script is important: Are you allowed to
alter the code but nt to redistribute this changed version etc. This
would mean that it isn't possible to include the package into the
community-repo.


2008/10/31 Alessio Bolognino <themolok.ml at gmail.com>:
> On Fri 2008-10-31 19:45, Imanol Celaya wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Aaron Hussein Griffin <
>> aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey guys,
>> >
>> > I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point
>> > a few things out:
>> >
>> > Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean
>> > you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to
>> > use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear.
>> >
>> > That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons:
>> > a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to
>> > redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we
>> > DON'T want).
>> > b) The original tarball no longer exists.
>> > c) I have seen no proof of copyright.
>> >
>> > Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to
>> > be more careful here.
>> >
>> >
>> although the COPYING file it's wrong, isn't this the same "trick" we use
>> with acroread?
>
> I agree, there is a lot of stuff like that (not redistributable) in AUR
> and I don't see why it shouldn't stay there. There is no copyright
> infringement IMHO.
>
> In this case the author explicitly asked to remove the PKGBUILD, so I
> think it should be removed to avoid legal actions against Arch Linux,
> but it should be stated publicly that the author is a fucktard^W^W
> wrong.
>
> --
> Alessio (molok) Bolognino
>