Re: [aur-general] SGE has copyright violation

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 9:28 AM Ben Lönnqvist via aur-general <
aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 24/10/2020 14.36, Manhong Dai via aur-general wrote:
> > This package is in clear text-book copyright violation right now! The
> > current maintainer is using my original SGE source code patch file
> without
> > mentioning I am the patch's author and University of Michigan's
> copyright.
> >
> > I also tried to settle with the current maintainer, I proposed that he
> can
> > keep the package but he has to use my single patch file with the
> copyright
> > and author on the top, then remove my name from the PKGBUILD file. He
> > rejected me.
>
> Sounds to me that what you should do is create a deletion request, but I
> could be wrong though.
>
> - Ben aka silentnoodle
>

That is true! I already submitted a delete request right after submitting
the email.

>
>

Re: [aur-general] SGE has copyright violation

[Ben Lönnqvist via aur-general]

On 24/10/2020 14.36, Manhong Dai via aur-general wrote:
> This package is in clear text-book copyright violation right now! The
> current maintainer is using my original SGE source code patch file without
> mentioning I am the patch's author and University of Michigan's copyright.
>
> I also tried to settle with the current maintainer, I proposed that he can
> keep the package but he has to use my single patch file with the copyright
> and author on the top, then remove my name from the PKGBUILD file. He
> rejected me.

Sounds to me that what you should do is create a deletion request, but I
could be wrong though.

- Ben aka silentnoodle



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[aur-general] SGE has copyright violation

[Manhong Dai via aur-general]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:02 AM  wrote:

> Request #21898 has been rejected by Foxboron [1]:
>
> Not interested. The sge package is not going to point at your fork.
>
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Foxboron/


Thanks a lot for the reply! But I never ask the current maintainer to point
to my fork. I guess those markdown syntax messed it up.

This package is in clear text-book copyright violation right now! The
current maintainer is using my original SGE source code patch file without
mentioning I am the patch's author and University of Michigan's copyright.
Further, he split it into many patch files, now those modifications look to
be his contribution as nobody will dig into git history, not to mention
patching with many files is the worst way to promote a software.

I believe I am the first one in the world who made SGE work under the
latest SSL and GLIBC. I created the single source code patch file, and
initially put it on AUR sge.

I also tried to settle with the current maintainer, I proposed that he can
keep the package but he has to use my single patch file with the copyright
and author on the top, then remove my name from the PKGBUILD file. He
rejected me.

Now here are all the facts, could you please reconsider it again?

1,  I am the original author of the SGE source code patch file, I put my
source code patch file on AUR sge.
2. I didn't receive any email notification before the package was taken
over, This is confirmed by a TU
3, I didn't join AUR-general before the package was taken over, and the
same TU confirmed that this is not required.
4, I tried to settle with the current maintainer, and asked him to respect
Copyright and original author, he rejected me.
5, The current maintainer's PKGBUILD doesn't work, and he 'git push' three
times anyway, while knowing it fails. It took him 7 days to fix a 'cd'
error.

Everything above are true facts, and it can be verified in court, and I am
willing to take any penalty if they are not fact.

Now, the simple question is, can any original work put on AUR be taken away
like this?

Best,
Manhong