On Fri, 2021-05-21 at 09:50 -0700, Brett Cornwall via aur-general wrote: > 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.
Very interesting links! I learned a lot. Here is my understanding after reading the two links. In terms of the first link about 'Rom Hacking', I would guess, if the Rom patch tool uses something like dd, especially if it is something like 'dd seek=', then the Rom patch doesn't use anything from the original Rom. However, a patch file generated by diffing source code files is very different as it does use the original source code. In terms of the second link 'Unofficial_patch', the three cases are all about if the user can modify a system he owns, more like a 'right to fix' case, instead of how a user can distribute a modified source code. In the Nintendo case, Game Genie sells a tool to modify Nintendo, but I would guess the tool doesn't include any code from Nintendo. Going back to the initial issue about this email chain, I would guess the AUR maintainer can use 'dd' instead of 'diff'. But this will become ridiculous and I personally won't do that at all, no matter I am the package maintainer or the original programmer. Just my two cents. I know nothing about law. If someone end up in jail and point a finger to me, all I do is to visit him once to make fun of him. :) Best, Manhong
