[aur-general] AUR & Copyright
Ronald van Haren
pressh at gmail.com
Fri Feb 11 12:45:44 EST 2011
Op 11 feb. 2011 17:35 schreef "Pierre Chapuis" <catwell at archlinux.us> het
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:17:29 +0000, Michael Schubert <mschu.dev at gmail.com>
>>> As long as the maintainer (aka copyright holder) are allowed to specify
>>> own license then I'd be fine with it, though.
>> Copyright holders are always allowed to publish their work under any
>> additional license. No issue there.
> Well, except when you adopt a package. Then there are two copyright
> holders and things get ugly.
> I think this discussion is pointless anyway: PKGBUILDs are build recipes,
> not code. They usually do not contain enough information to be
> So even if someone stuck a copy of the GPL at the top of a PKGBUILD I
> simply ignore it, because he had no right to put a license on
> make; make install" or something similar in the first place.
> Pierre 'catwell' Chapuis
I agree, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to license a few simple build
instructions. Applied patches could be licensed but they should be
compatible with the original license of the package.
If someone adds a license to a PKGBUILD I woukd just simply rewrite it from
scratch. It is not that it is very difficult in almost all of the cases.
More information about the aur-general