On 05/22/18 at 01:43am, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 05/22/2018 12:37 AM, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, it's quite weird. Though as I said, if the AUR maintainer can > somehow come to some agreement with them about applying some pretty > basic fixes like a bunch of upstream Mozilla patches, then this whole > issue could just disappear on its own, which would be nice. > > This does assume someone is interested in actually discussing things > with the palemoon team which doesn't seem to be a fun prospect at all, > due to lack of reciprocation. > > But I'm not fundamentally opposed to leaving this a trademark dispute, > where I expect it to die as -ENOT_IN_VIOLATION.
The accusation is trademark infringement, not copyright. The fact that what we're distributing is not their work is kind of the point. Whether or not PKGBUILDs can infringe a trademark and whether or not this specific one does, is basilisk really such an amazing piece of software that it's worth getting into a fight with its developers just to keep it in the AUR? Let's just remove it and be done. Years ago, we had a similar situation with ion3, and, if IIRC, it was ultimately removed. apg
