[pacman-dev] Time for changes

[Aaron Griffin]

On 10/4/06, VMiklos <vmiklos at frugalware.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 07:47:17PM -0500, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is illegal.  This is not about licenses.
>
> sure, this is not about licenses. but then why do you quote the gpl?

Um, because the GPL guarantees copyright freedoms?  It's the GPL that
actually protects your copyright.

> > You have not done this, and have now, on a public mailing list,
> > refused to comply with the GPL.  Is this an action you sure you want
> > to take?
>
> of course not. i would like to see the copyrights fixed in the cvs, as i
> stated several times previously. at the moment when you contribute to
> pacman you don't have to say "the copyright holder of my code will be
> Judd" and i never said so.

Ok, there is a misunderstanding here.  Your darcs repository is a
historical reference of GPL violation.  You ARE in violation of the
GPL.  There's no way around it.  Regardless of who's was public first,
or other pissing contests, Judd holds the pacman copyright.  Copying
or even forking the code, under the GPL, requires you to maintain this
copyright exactly as is.  You have failed this.  You are in violation.

This is not a light issue.  You are, as we speak, violating the GPL.
You copied code, and changed the copyright attribution.  I can look at
the patch you provided, and in under 10 seconds, count 4 files which
have 0 changes, but contain your copyright changes - this is ALSO not
allowed under the GPL.

I will go through and determine exactly which files are patched by
you, and apply the authors name to the copyright in CVS.  This will
waste my time, sure.  If you guys would like, you can feel free to
waive your rights on existing code in CVS, giving copyright ownership
to Judd, though I doubt you'd do that.

>From now on, all patches must explicitly waive the author's copyright
claim in order to be accepted into pacman.  We cannot allow this
rampant GPL violation to continue.