On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Emil Lundberg <lundberg.e...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This doesn't matter though. The AUR does not host any software that >> may or may not be used for copyright infringement. The AUR is simply a >> collection of build scripts. > > Keep in mind that this exact argument was used by The Pirate Bay in > Swedish court, and they were struck down for "facilitation of > copyright infringement" if I recall correctly. I don't doubt that the > proportion of illegal activity is substantially greater for The Pirate > Bay than for the AUR, but what's the real difference except that they > also made money from ads? > > I'm not saying it's wrong to allow the package in question, I just > wanted to point this out. And even if this would tick someone off I > doubt anyone would bother taking Arch to court for something like this > anytime soon. > > /Emil
We had a discussion about "warez in the AUR" a few times: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016268.html https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-October/016282.html https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2012-January/017268.html If you can legally buy a game (e.g. on gog.com), should the AUR package be allowed to download the source (game data, not the source code) from abandonia.com and friends?