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

[Eli Schwartz]

On 05/19/2018 04:41 PM, Christian Rebischke via aur-general wrote:
> Oh dear.. the behaviour of these palemoon people is so ridiculous and
> rude. I suggest we support openBSD and just delete the package.
> If they don't want users they don't get any.
> 
> Their browser isn't 'that' good at all...
> 
> just my 2 cents

If the maintainer and users don't want the package, then we can
certainly accede to the request to delete an unpopular package.

If we're going to specifically delete this package in retaliation for
people with bad attitude, we'd establish a precedent that users are not
allowed to maintain AUR packages if the Trusted User team dislikes the
upstream. I don't want to go there. :p

Rejecting it from [community] is another matter entirely, but I don't
believe any poor soul tried to add it to [community] to begin with... :p

If we're going to specifically delete this package due to trademark
concerns, we'd better be sure that that is consistent with the legal
position of the AUR, and presumably consider how the many other
proprietary packages fit into that worldview.

I'm fairly certain our stance has always been that with the exception of
aiding and abetting software that is intrinsically illegal... everything
we do falls under the category of "telling users how to do it
themselves", which means we cannot, in fact, be infringing to my
knowledge, and therefore cannot in good faith delete basilisk for this
reason.

Should we bring out our crack team of lawyers held on retainer for
situations like this? :D

-- 
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/20180521/16a5d405/attachment-0001.asc>