[aur-general] Notification of GPL violation

Manhong Dai daimh at umich.edu
Fri May 21 22:53:26 UTC 2021

On Fri, May 21, 2021, 6:34 PM Daniel Berjón Díez <asuranceturix at gmail.com>

> On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 22:26, Manhong Dai <daimh at umich.edu> wrote:
>> Further, as Daniel already pointed out, this case is just about API.
> I did no such thing, I merely pointed out that one of their arguments is
> that the copy was not substantial in volume, and it was a lot more than
> three lines for a patch; actually, they specifically did not rule on the
> API copyrightability issue.

Very fun discussion! Thanks for the inspiration!

In the Syllabus, page 2 and 3 of the opinion, it is all about API or "user


Everybody can argue about that a diff patch file is 'fair use' or not. But
I think we can agree that  'fair use' is always case by case as it depends
on how large/important the the  patch is. I also think we can agree that
most of the patch files are neither API nor "user interface" as in the
opinion above.

If the patch file is more than API, I am certain that the two dissenting
justices will think it is also a copyright violation, and I am not certain
how many of the other 6 justices will vote.

Just my naive understanding about the Scotus opinion, it is worth $0.019
due to the current inflation, and it is worth zero in Europe.


More information about the aur-general mailing list