On 22 May 2018 at 05:37, Doug Newgard via aur-general <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2018 23:17:39 -0400 > Eli Schwartz via aur-general <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All this being said: >> >> [11:07:23 PM] <MoonchildPM|Away> eschwartz: if you plan to go that >> route, that's fine and someone can have a look over your build >> configuration (which I could do as well if it is was not 5 in the >> morning) and can tell you what's wrong with it. In the interim, until >> permission is granted, you are NOT allowed to keep these packages up >> since you're in violation. You ask permission first, get it granted >> first, THEN are allowed to use it if OK, not in any other order > > What these jokers don't seem to get is that there is NO packages involved > here. > There is nothing here that violates the license as there is no redistribution > at all. Moot point, move on and whine somewhere else.
They seem to acknowledge it with: >[10:43:49 PM] <KlipKyle> eschwartz: you are distributing build scripts, >like Gentoo ebuilds except less automation. The same rules apply. What they seem to be against is the use of the name, which the pkgname variable does contain. And the upstream URL too I guess? If you can even claim trademark violation over a URL.
