[aur-general] Notification of GPL violation

[Manhong Dai]

On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 19:04 +0200, alad via aur-general wrote:
> On 25/05/2021 18:58, Antoine Viallon via aur-general wrote:
> > 25 mai 2021 16:42 "Genes Lists via aur-general" < 
> > aur-general at lists.archlinux.org> a écrit:
> > 
> > > As an outside observer of this thread, it seems like the time for
> > > discussion is over. This talk
> > > appears to center largely about opinions on civil litigation.
> > 
> > Actually, this discussion could be important if the responsability
> > of Arch could potentially be involved.
> > Nobody wants the Arch project to be sued or to be liable in some
> > way or another.
> 
> ...and, as I said already, it was long established that Arch is not 
> liable or involved in any way.
> 
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2021-May/036236.html
> 
> But sure, let's keep talking about ways to obscure trivial patches to
> mitigate phantom copyright claims. I mean, really?
> 
> Alad

I beg to differ, as 'trivial' is subjective.

As long as a patch file includes a significant portion or essential
part of the upstream code, it constitutes software redistribution, and
subjects to Section 4 and 5 of GPLV3. The package maintainer/submitter
is responsible.

Then, if AUR or even a TU is involved in anything related to the patch
file, such as modifying the patch file, AUR will become liable too.

Filipe Laíns's opinion in your link is actually conforming to the GPL
requirement, because he suggested to provide a notice, which should
include copyright and warranty at a minimum.

On another note, I often notice that people in this list say a PKGBUILD
file doesn't have copyright. IMHO, this opinion is wrong unless AUR'd
Term of Services says that the user agrees to assign the PKGBUILD file
copyright to AUR while using the service. 

Just my two cents. Again, I am not lawyer and never made a cent with
law. Instead, law made me lose quite some money.....


Best,
Manhong


> 
> > 
> > aviallon