On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 22:11 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote: > On 6/1/19 5:43 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote: > > On 2/6/19 1:53 am, Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public wrote: > > > On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > > > > You don't seem to > > > > explain why you need to ask in your email. > > > > > > Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid > > > reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no > > > difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera. > > > > > > > Does the license allow us to have it in the repos? After a quick > > look, > > I'd say no. > > The license for the AUR package appears to be somehow extracted using > /usr/bin/strings from one of the binary files in the software > download. > > Assuming it's the same as the one here: > https://vivaldi.com/privacy/vivaldi-end-user-license-agreement/ > > It's absolutely illegal to redistribute it. As per the pinned comment > on > the AUR package, it is also available and illegally redistributed as > a > repackaged pacman package here: https://repo.herecura.eu/ > This should probably be removed too. > > Note: there are other proprietary packages shipped in the Arch repos, > but on the unusual occasion where we deem it fitting to provide such > software, we have written authorization from the rights-holders to do > so. > As far as I can tell, that is not the case here. If and when it is > the > case here, that permission can be added to the > /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ directory of the vivaldi package in > the > AUR, to signify that the prebuilt packages are legally > redistributable, > either in personally hosted repos or [community]. > > See the teamspeak3 package for an example implementation. > https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION.eml?h=packages/teamspeak3 > > ... > > Just because we are not an FSDG distribution which prays at the altar > of > Richard Stallman doesn't mean licensing is some sort of silly joke > that > no one cares about. > > And I don't think it makes sense to say this matters less, if it's > being > distributed from someone's personal repo instead of from a multi- > member > organization. >
If that's what it requires, I can get a written consent we can re- distribute vivaldi. I asked them before putting it in my personal repo, if I was allowed to do that.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
