[aur-general] Basilisk pkgbuild is facing a trademark violation?

Tue May 22 03:17:39 UTC 2018

On 05/19/2018 01:23 PM, Fabio Loli via aur-general wrote:
> Mattatobin, of which you can read here
> 
> https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86
> 
> Have made this (edited) comment in the AUR webpage asking for removal
> 
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/basilisk
> 
>     You do realize this package is completely insane. I want you to
>     remove any remaining Basilisk branding and use of the name including
>     in the desktop file and this very package from AUR that you are
>     obviously squatting on.

1) Pale Moon and everything that comes from there is gross.

2) There's no rule against gross things being in the AUR. If someone
wants to maintain it, and users want to use it, that's their choice.

3) On the topic of license violations, I joined #palemoon on Freenode to
try to clarify things... @mattatobin responded to me there.

[10:11:52 PM] <eschwartz> so if I understand correctly, it is utterly
forbidden to use the basilisk name in any way, shape or form, without
exception, under any circumstances whatsoever, bar none? Then what is
the purpose of having a trademark...
[10:12:49 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> eschwartz: Your rights are clearly
stated in the Mozilla Public License
[10:13:03 PM] <eschwartz> so just to be clear, this is your objection?
^^ you don't allow any sort of use whatsoever, ever, no matter what, ever?
[10:13:37 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> Not for Basilisk.. If you call it
something else and don't use the word "Basilisk" but otherwise comply
with the MPL.. well that is your business

I'm completely unsure what to do with this information.

I'm inclined to say that since we don't host source code, binaries,
branding files, or indeed anything other than download URLs and
compilation command lines, we're covered under the same rules that let
us host PKGBUILDs for completely proprietary software, rather than
basilisk where only the branding is proprietary. But it seems they disagree:

[10:08:23 PM] <eschwartz> But I still don't see what it is doing wrong
[10:08:29 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> because of the Pale Moon redist license
[10:08:34 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> eschwartz: You don't have to
[10:08:55 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> eschwartz: You merely have to comply
with the Mozilla Public License
[10:09:12 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> which does not grant any rights to the
name "Basilisk"
[10:09:27 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> You do NOT have the right to call it
Basilisk in any form
[10:09:29 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> simple as that

[10:24:08 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> You are misrepresenting us is what you
are doing..

[11:04:09 PM] <eschwartz> MoonchildPM|Away: I asked an hour ago, what is
wrong with the build configuration and what you would prefer. I got
flatly stonewalled, and told that NewTobinParadigm as a representative
of the Pale Moon team was flatly asserting the trademark rights to
unconditionally forbid its use, with the presumed logical conclusion
that there is no build configuration other than -when-hell-freezes-over
which would be acceptable.
[11:04:37 PM] <eschwartz> then I got the output of `yes MPL`
[11:04:56 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> Colorful
[11:05:32 PM] <NewTobinParadigm> essentually true but not so dramatic
[11:05:34 PM] <eschwartz> are you saying there is something this package
could be doing, which would meet your approval? this is news to me

Despite my repeated requests to know what, exactly, we are
misrepresenting via this build, no one was inclined to say anything
other than "you're in violation of the license, please delete everything".

So as far as I can tell, this really and truly is entirely down to their
complete unwillingness to see their name used at all, and not for any
reason specific to this package.

In which case I'm unsure why this is worse than distributing Spotify via
an AUR package too. We'd need to establish a rule that proprietary
software is completely forbidden from the AUR.

... which I pointed out, and was then told:

[10:43:49 PM] <KlipKyle> eschwartz: you are distributing build scripts,
like Gentoo ebuilds except less automation.  The same rules apply.

But Gentoo explicitly contains USE flags for
proprietary-non-redistributable software, on the grounds that the user
can choose whether they want to include non-redistributable code as a
general thing on their built system (perhaps they want to redistribute
the system as an ISO image or something).

And anyway, we've got no rule against this AFAICT.

...

All this being said:

[11:07:23 PM] <MoonchildPM|Away> eschwartz: if you plan to go that
route, that's fine and someone can have a look over your build
configuration (which I could do as well if it is was not 5 in the
morning) and can tell you what's wrong with it. In the interim, until
permission is granted, you are NOT allowed to keep these packages up
since you're in violation. You ask permission first, get it granted
first, THEN are allowed to use it if OK, not in any other order

So if @bm456 would like to work with the Pale Moon team to establish a
mutually satisfactory outcome, that would certainly be the most...
effective solution.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20180521/fe332e9c/attachment.asc>