[aur-general] Notification of GPL violation

[Manhong Dai]

On Fri, May 21, 2021, 4:47 PM Паша <pavel.finkelshtein at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> пт, 21 мая 2021 г., 23:40 Manhong Dai via aur-general <
> aur-general at lists.archlinux.org>:
>
>> On Fri, May 21, 2021, 4:36 PM mar77i via aur-general <
>> aur-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
>>
>> > -‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 10:25 PM, Manhong Dai via aur-general <
>> > aur-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
>> > > IMHO, as it is very tricky to distribute a patch file without
>> copyright,
>> > a
>> > > better solution for AUR maintainers is to creat patch files including
>> the
>> > > upstream copyright and then host the files somewhere else. AUR will
>> not
>> > be
>> > > liable to such legal headache anymore, and the patch file owner enjoys
>> > the
>> > > deserved credit all by himself while taking the full liability too.
>> After
>> > > all, AUR seems to be a public community for now and TU works for free
>> for
>> > > now too.
>> >
>> > You know how fugly that is? If my domain where I store my source code
>> gets
>> > nuked because I get hit by a bus, nobody else may know what the patch's
>> > content was. Sure, I could be less "anti-social" and just use github
>> like
>> > too many other people, but I don't like being forced to do so. There
>> was a
>> > similar discussion on the topic in the pypi community recently, where
>> the
>> > problem of too many things hosted elsewhere is raised in the same way.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://discuss.python.org/t/what-to-do-about-gpus-and-the-built-distributions-that-support-them/7125
>>
>>
>> As long as other people ever downloaded your patch files, everything is
>> fine no matter your website is nuked or you get hit by a bus.
>>
>>
>> Actually your logic applies to AUR too, are you worried about AUR is
>> nuked?
>>
>> Best,
>> Manhong
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > cheers!
>> > mar77i
>> >
>> >
>> > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>> >
>>
>
> With all due respect I want to remind you that law has not only the
> letter, but also a spirit. And when RMS was advocating for GPL he always
> kept in mind how the story had begun: he wasn't able to fix error in the
> printer firmware cause it was proprietary. And the whole idea of GPL was
> ability for user to change the software.
>
> And also it was always about freedom and availability of course AND
> knowledge. Saying that we should not teach other users how they can modify
> source code they have is bad for the freedom and breaks both of these
> principles.
>

Thanks a lot for teaching me not to teach others!

Actually I am not teaching anyone as I said I know nothing about law and it
is just my humble opinion.

Best,
Manhong

>