On 28 October 2011 23:55, Peter Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Christopher luna wrote: >> Im not even asking you to agree with me, Im asking you to vote and decide if >> including urls to warez on pkgbuilds that are on AUR is OFFICIALY ok, or not. >> >> again is not about they being propietary software or about providing >> installers. Is ONLY about urls to warez. they are ok or not? > > I think this is a legitimate question. But to be honest, despite what any of > us > think, it should probably be answered by whoever "legally is" Archlinux. > Aaron, > perhaps?
No need. Because... * Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Retail" PKGBUILD that retrieves an archive containing cracked executables is WRONG. * Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Retail" PKGBUILD that does not retrieve anything but has the file name of the archive containing cracked executables as a source is WRONG. * Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Runtime" PKGBUILD that retrieves an official *redistributable* archive containing clean executables is RIGHT. * Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Demo" PKGBUID that retrieves an official *non-redistributable* archive containing clean executables is WRONG. * Uploading a "Microsoft Office 2011 Demo" PKGBUILD that does not retrieve anything but has the file name of the official *non-redistributable* archive containing clean executables as source is RIGHT. Think of the these as a template checklist for your next AUR restricted contribution, i.e apply where applicable. Abandonware is nothing special. Some may be redistributed freely, some not. When not, don't. Simple. I agree that we need to have some sort of black and white on this, so I've made a simple addition to the FAQ: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Q:_What_kind_of_packages_are_permitted_on_the_AUR.3F -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
