[aur-general] ...

Manhong Dai daimh at umich.edu
Mon May 24 12:59:08 UTC 2021

On Mon, 2021-05-24 at 07:43 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 5/22/21 4:35 PM, Manhong Dai via aur-general wrote:
> > I fully agree with that the copyright holder doesn't have any ground
> > if 
> he
> > is complaining about that the package maintainer shouldn't modify it.
> > 
> > But if he is complaining about  how the patch file should be
> > distributed, I
> > think he does have a ground to sue, as a patch file constitutes a
> > modified
> > source code and then subjects to many limitation of GPL. For example,
> > does
> > the package maintainer carry an 'appropriate copyright notice' as in
> > 
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#IWantCredit
> > 
> > Unfortunately, I don't know if there is any cases about the patch
> > files.
> > This will be interesting!
> Who is this about? The noisetorch software, or the sge software? And
> what even is this???

I only mentioned sge in my first email because I had similar experience
with AUR. I even said 'life is too short' in the same email because I
already moved on. You are the one bringing up sge again. Thus you might
want to ask yourself your own question "why you're replying to the
noisetorch thread". Not to mention your claim about SGE are all false.
I will quote below.

> > Not to mention that the copyright holder already complained in this
> > particular case, and the package maintainer did use a patch file,
> > which
> > always includes the original source code. Upside is it seems the
> > package
> > maintainer already fixed it.
> In the former case the noisetorch copyright owner didn't state "I want
> credit" for the patch hunk containing copyrighted lines. So there is no
> point in arguing about whether or not distributing a patch file is fair
> use of the copyrighted code, or counts as obviously crediting the owner
> "because anyone capable of reading a patch also realizes that the
> copyright can be referenced by looking at the source code it is
> downloaded alongside".
> Because... the author didn't demand credit.
> If this is about sge, then first off I don't understand why you're
> replying to the noisetorch thread.
> Second, my understanding is you, the purported copyright holder, do not
> in fact own the *original source code* for sge copyright, it is
> dave.love's modifications to Sun's original IP.

This is a lie! I never claimed to have copyright of SGE. I claimed U of
Michigan has the copyright of my patch file, without which, SGE doesn't
work with Arch Linux or any modern Linux at all. As the current AUR SGE
depends openssl-1.0 according to
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sge/ , you will understand this
package became a joke, as openssl 1.1 is released in 2016.

> The question of whether you can claim copyright violation over a copy
> of
> 3 lines of the *original* source code in the diff hunk not having a
> copyright header, is irrelevant again, because dave.love didn't
> complain
> about the sge copyright.
> So... we're back to the question I mentioned in my first response, "do
> the changes, not the *original* source code, constitute a creative work
> eligible for copyright"?
> I humbly submit to the court of public opinion that, though I did not
> actually look at your patches to find out, I'm of the opinion that they
> must not be a creative work eligible for copyright.
> Because. If you *thought* it was a creative work eligible for
> copyright?
> You would not be WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME discussing inanities like
> whether or not someone's copyright is being violated if as a side
> effect
> of the "patch" technology some fragments of source code you don't own
> are being distributed!
> I completely, utterly, 100% do not care in any way shape or form what
> you think about the general idea of patch files not containing
> copyright
> headers for the original source code which they are modifying (larger
> than the rest of the file, even). It's probably covered by fair use. To
> be certain, I don't think I've ever once seen anyone put copyright
> headers on patch files in order to advertise the license of half-baked
> fragments of context diffs worth of the original project's
> pre-modification source code. You do NOT have the right to declare for
> other people whether other people believe their copyright is being
> violated.
> If, for software which you own the copyright to, you demand people
> include your copyright text any time they reuse your code by including
> it in the surrounding context of a patch file, then it's not worth my
> time to litigate with you, whether it is fair use or whatnot. I'll
> include an insultingly rude preamble e.g.
> "The author of the original source code which this patch modifies, is a
> butthead that insisted I include full copyright notices for 3 lines of
> diff context used under fair use to tell the patch program how to apply
> my changes. This is patently nonsense and the author is clearly just
> trying to stir up trouble. The software is of course licensed under the
> license in the linked archive of, you know, actual code -- to which
> this
> patch of mine must be applied in order to be used. Since I cannot be
> bothered to argue this drivel, here are 674 lines worth of your free
> copy of the GPL, after which you can find 6 lines of above-licensed
> code, surrounding one line which is copyrighted by me and licensed
> under
> the terms of the
> shut-the-heck-up-this-is-copyright-the-upstream-project-license-
> already.
> I hope you enjoy reading through all that GPL before finding this tiny
> patch. Don't worry! You can read it again once you download the
> original
> project code too.
> P.S. This is why we can't have nice things."
> Because the GPL only tells me how I may use the code, it doesn't forbid
> me from calling you a butthead on the side.
> All this is, of course, if we are actually talking about a project you
> produce (not a patch to someone else's project), 

Oh God. this sentence is the most horrendous copyright understanding I
ever saw. If you are a TU, I would honestly suggest you to spend some
time to read GPL. Let us keep it simple.

The upstream copyright holder owns the full copyright of the upstream
software. Your understanding about this part is right.

If an AUR package maintainer applies a source code patch file, he owns
the copyright of the patch file, unless he explicitly put the patch
file in public domain. [1]

Here is the GPL FAQs that might interest you, 


> and assumes I care
> enough about your project to actually persist in trying to use it
> rather
> than simply abandoning your project by the wayside and finding some
> other project to suit my needs -- one written by someone who is
> satisfied with producing code and demanding I distribute notice of the
> overall license, but doesn't care how I "license" bits and scraps of
> his
> code distributed in the accompanying patch file.

More information about the aur-general mailing list