[aur-general] Request to add a rule

[Ray Rashif]

On 28 October 2011 23:55, Peter Lewis <plewis at aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Christopher luna wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I think this is a legitimate question. But to be honest, despite what any of us
> think, it should probably be answered by whoever "legally is" Archlinux.  Aaron,
> perhaps?

No need. Because...

* Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Retail" PKGBUILD that retrieves
an archive containing cracked executables is WRONG.

* Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Retail" PKGBUILD that does not
retrieve anything but has the file name of the archive containing
cracked executables as a source is WRONG.

* Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Runtime" PKGBUILD that retrieves
an official *redistributable* archive containing clean executables is
RIGHT.

* Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Demo" PKGBUID that retrieves an
official *non-redistributable* archive containing clean executables is
WRONG.

* Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Demo" PKGBUILD that does not
retrieve anything but has the file name of the official
*non-redistributable* archive containing clean executables as source
is RIGHT.

Think of the these as a template checklist for your next AUR
restricted contribution, i.e apply where applicable.

Abandonware is nothing special. Some may be redistributed freely, some
not. When not, don't. Simple.

I agree that we need to have some sort of black and white on this, so
I've made a simple addition to the FAQ:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Q:_What_kind_of_packages_are_permitted_on_the_AUR.3F


--
GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10