Theres nothing wrong about the license in my eyes because it is like Ondřej Kučera said: The User is allowed to download the source and compile it. No problem with the PKGBUILD as guide to install. So in this way only the install-script is important: Are you allowed to alter the code but nt to redistribute this changed version etc. This would mean that it isn't possible to include the package into the community-repo.
2008/10/31 Alessio Bolognino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri 2008-10-31 19:45, Imanol Celaya 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? > > I agree, there is a lot of stuff like that (not redistributable) in AUR > and I don't see why it shouldn't stay there. There is no copyright > infringement IMHO. > > In this case the author explicitly asked to remove the PKGBUILD, so I > think it should be removed to avoid legal actions against Arch Linux, > but it should be stated publicly that the author is a fucktard^W^W > wrong. > > -- > Alessio (molok) Bolognino >
