[aur-general] New PKGBUILD for consideration "ttf-apple"
archlinux at jelmail.com
archlinux at jelmail.com
Sun Jan 20 06:25:29 EST 2013
Ok, thanks for the feedback, and it's what I assumed would be the case
and my reason for asking. I did wonder why there were packages in the
AUR that linked to content without, apparently, having appropriate
rights. To confirm that I understand this correctly:
On 20/01/13 08:45, Xyne wrote:
> The PKGBUILD does not contain the fonts so it is not distribution. The
> fonts are downloaded directly by the user when the package is built.
> Unless the source of those files is somehow illegal (e.g. privately
> hosted non-free files that the host may not legally distribute) then
> there is no problem. Regards, Xyne
A PKGBUILD may link to legal sources, so for an Apple font package to be
legal, its sources must be. I get that. But the sources I used are those
in use by packages already in AUR so, if they aren't legal sources, this
would make the existing AUR packages (macfonts and ttf-mac-fonts) bad
too, right ?
So to review the legality of the package we need to look at its sources:
On 20/01/13 04:27, Kirill Churin wrote:
> This package source links:
> http://ompldr.org/vNXFlNA — illegal
This is from package 'macfonts' in the AUR. From what I can tell it
originated from http://ubuntu-debs.googlecode.com/files/macfonts.tar.gz
via http://korben.info//des-polices-mac-sur-ubuntu.html who copied it
onto a file host at http://ompldr.org/vNXFlNA. The source at
http://ubuntu-debs.googlecode.com is no longer available.
This is indirectly from package 'ttf-mac' in the AUR. It isn't in the
package itself but is directly linked from the URL given in the
PKGBUILD's 'pkgdesc' entry
(https://github.com/GutenYe/aur/tree/master/ttf-mac: at the bottom,
there is a link "Wow, It's too complex, it there a easy way? sure, you
can find a download link at
This is from package 'ttf-mac-fonts' in the AUR. This one presents the
"Safari For Windows" license as applicable to this which I doubt is
I would say that, from a legality viewpoint, package 'ttf-mac' is the
cleanest as it doesn't install anything without additional work on
behalf of the user to provide licensed content themselves (although it
does indirectly link to a dubious way of obtaining that content). The
other, however, I would suggest are somewhat dubious and should,
perhaps, be removed?
As I can't vouch for the sources used by the AUR packages that I based
my package on, I won't publish my package to the AUR.
Many thanks for your comment and apologies if I've opened a can of worms ;)
More information about the aur-general