On 2021-05-21 11:54, Manhong Dai via aur-general wrote:
I know I will be the minority in this list. However, this statement doesn't sound right to me if the patch file is applied to the original source code.Unlike the file PKGBUILD, a patch file constitutes a modified source code because it does include some original code. No matter whether the modification is for use, or operation, or just even a typo fix, GPLV3 section 5 "Conveying Modified Source Versions" [1] doesn't distinguish them. I had a similar experience in terms of the AUR package SGE. I put my source code modification into a single patch file and put it to AUR git. Without my modification, SGE won't work with latest Linux anymore. However, due to an AUR website bug confirmed by a TU, the package was taken over without any emails sent to me. After a lot of back and force with the second maintainer, I finally gave up re-owning the package or making the software better within AUR. Instead I asked the second maintainer to add my name to the single patch file so I get the credit I deserve. However, the second maintainer denied that. He split the patch into many small patch files without my name in any of them, and insists that it is enough to have my name as the first AUR package maintainer. Then I asked him to remove my code modification, also was denied. Then I tried to ask TU to remove the package many times, all TUs denied my request, except the last TU deleted all those small patch files after he understood this is a serious copyright violation issue. Here is my understanding about those copyright conflicts. If you modified any source code, then GPL license will be applied, you have to copy the original copyright without any modification and then add yours, just as section 4 in GPL v3 says "You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it" It is understandable that many AUR maintainers, or programmers like myself, don't know the details and often violates some copyright law more or less. We are lucky that most upstream programmers don't mind it. But, should such issue arise, I would do my best to make the upstream programmer happy or just find another alternative software. I know I am the minority in this list because the AUR SGE got two up- votes ironically after it didn't work anymore, and the second maintainer is even promoting the binary version based on my modification on some other repos. But, life is too short, I can live with it. I am writing this email because I just hope my painful experience can help this list know copyright better.
I think that's a valid angle to bring up!FWIW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROM_hacking#Distribution and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_patch#Law may be of interest. If a litigious company like Nintendo hasn't gotten courts to stamp out romhack patches I'm not sure this little software project poses any threat...
The upstream developer merely has an axe to grind against those that don't take openly-available code and use it in ways they intend. To that end, beating their chest with vague legal threats is an attempt at dominance rather than any pursuance of legal justice.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
