[aur-general] Notification of GPL violation

Manhong Dai daimh at umich.edu
Sun May 23 15:12:44 UTC 2021

On Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:02 AM Tinu Weber <takeya at bluewin.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 15:06:09 -0400, Manhong Dai via aur-general wrote:
> > "locally patch it in any way you like"
> >
> > I basically agree with everything  you said, but the  statement quoted
> > above is tricky.
> >
> > As I said before, it really depends on how you patch it. If it is a diff
> > patch file, which always uses the original code, then the upstream
> > programmer does have a ground to sue.
> Isn't a patch file simply nothing more than a formalised way of
> explaining "here is how you (yourself, on your machine) have to change
> the source to make it work".
> Why is it different from a guide in plain $human_language that explains
> the same set of changes?

I would fully agree with you if the patch file doesn't include any original
source code.

Actually, to boil it down, it all depends on how the upstream feels.

In most of the cases, I believe the upstream  doesn't care or is even happy
about it. But small companies or individuals do need the credit/income to
survive and grow.

btw, I am sure we can see more conflicts like this if AUR becomes more
popular and has some income, which I think is well deserved. but this is
another topic about 'fair use' clause in US copyright law, which should
concern AUR owner, IMHO.


> Best,
> Tinu

More information about the aur-general mailing list