[aur-general] Request to add a rule

Christopher luna chrislcenter-mamoru at yahoo.com.mx
Fri Oct 28 11:40:23 EDT 2011

Hmm I didn't want it to come to this. I never want it as a TGN.

Im going to try to answer some things.

Peter Lewis <plewis at aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
> Hi. Please don't break threads though by starting new
> ones.

Sorry. Since this was a more formal request, and I thought it was necessary to put it on its own thread. Next time I won't.

"Sven-Hendrik Haase" <sh at lutzhaase.com> wrote:
> I don't see the point. AUR packages do not
> redistribute anything. They contain URLs themselves.

Karol Blazewicz <karol.blazewicz at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm guessing the point would be that there have been
> several legal
> cases brought against people involved in distributing
> URLs to material
> that can't be freely distributed itself.

Well yes, thats the point. It MAY be bad for aur.archlinux.org doing the same thing that have been used to close down torrent servers.

Torrents only contain address and certain text, still there are lots of legal problems with them.

The point is to avoid a gray area making a strict rule to forbid (or allow) those kind of pkgbuilds instead of just expecting the use of common sense from all aur users.

Karol Blazewicz <karol.blazewicz at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's OK to provide an installer w/o any kind of
> link to the
> proprietary package. It can provide a launcher or
> whatever.

Peter Lewis <plewis at aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
> Just do what Ionut suggested earlier, put the name of the
> downloaded file in the
> source array, but without the URL, so that users have to
> already have or
> download the file themselves before running makepkg.

Thats perfect! (and I really like this solution)

The point of the thread is a request to add a rule to avoid a gray area.
If the rule is "pkgbuilds to install abandoware or any warez is not allowed, in no way" fine, it works.

OR if the rule is "pkgbuilds to install abandoware or any warez are ok as long they don't have a link to a file which distribution is not allowed (warez), so the user has to get the file on their own"
thats perfect! it works too.

IF the rule is "any kind of pkgbuilds are allowed, as they are only recipes and they are responability of the uploader" which means you think a url to whatever warez is not a bad thing, well, in my opinion is not the best choice, but STILL works. At least in that case, there would be a official position.

Because the problem is that right now, is more opinion based than anything.
Yesterday I asked for the deletion of a package for doom2 (which is not allowed to distribution) and it got deleted.
Today there is a petition to "undelete" it, including something about changing it to not contain urls.
(yes, I know is not about undelete it or not; that person can just recreate it.)

My point is, me asking yesterday for a deletion for warez and getting it deleted and today someone asking for undeletion, is because arch has no official position about this matter.

The way things are now. if I ask for another deletion and a TU who agrees with me is here, is gonna be deleted. But, if only TUs who disagree with me are around, then my petition is gonna be rejected.

If I create a pkgbuild to point to a warez url, is somehow in a uncertain area; it may be deleted or it may not.

Im not even asking you to agree with me, Im asking you to vote and decide if including urls to warez on pkgbuilds that are on AUR is OFFICIALY ok, 
or not.

again is not about they being propietary software or about providing installers. Is ONLY about urls to warez. they are ok or not?

More information about the aur-general mailing list