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

[Andrew Gregory]

On 05/22/18 at 01:43am, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 05/22/2018 12:37 AM, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> > What these jokers don't seem to get is that there is NO packages involved here.
> > There is nothing here that violates the license as there is no redistribution
> > at all. Moot point, move on and whine somewhere else.
> 
> Yes, it's quite weird. Though as I said, if the AUR maintainer can
> somehow come to some agreement with them about applying some pretty
> basic fixes like a bunch of upstream Mozilla patches, then this whole
> issue could just disappear on its own, which would be nice.
> 
> This does assume someone is interested in actually discussing things
> with the palemoon team which doesn't seem to be a fun prospect at all,
> due to lack of reciprocation.
> 
> But I'm not fundamentally opposed to leaving this a trademark dispute,
> where I expect it to die as -ENOT_IN_VIOLATION.

The accusation is trademark infringement, not copyright.  The fact
that what we're distributing is not their work is kind of the point.
Whether or not PKGBUILDs can infringe a trademark and whether or not
this specific one does, is basilisk really such an amazing piece of
software that it's worth getting into a fight with its developers just
to keep it in the AUR?  Let's just remove it and be done.  Years ago,
we had a similar situation with ion3, and, if IIRC, it was ultimately
removed.

apg