On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Imanol Celaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Aaron Hussein Griffin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hey guys, >> >> I just got the email below and want to take this opportunity to point >> a few things out: >> >> Licenses are important. If a project has no license that DOES NOT mean >> you are able to redistribute it by adding a file that says "Free to >> use". Just because it is in the AUR doesn't mean we are in the clear. >> >> That said, I believe this email is a little silly for three reasons: >> a) Nothing there is stolen. It is a PKGBUILD. If it is illegal to >> redistribute the source, then the end user is liable (something we >> DON'T want). >> b) The original tarball no longer exists. >> c) I have seen no proof of copyright. >> >> Still, I do want to take this opportunity to point out that we NEED to >> be more careful here. >> > > although the COPYING file it's wrong, isn't this the same "trick" we use > with acroread?
Not necessarily. acroread says that anyone may download it but may not redistribute it. Therefore, when a user runs makepkg, they're doing completely what is expected of them. Downloading it and installing without redistributing it at all. If I had to guess, the original package here had no such license.
