On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 19:57 +0200, Evert Vorster wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 May 2021 at 19:27, Manhong Dai via aur-general < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 19:04 +0200, alad via aur-general wrote: > > > On 25/05/2021 18:58, Antoine Viallon via aur-general wrote: > > > > 25 mai 2021 16:42 "Genes Lists via aur-general" < > > > > [email protected]> a écrit: > > > > > > > > > As an outside observer of this thread, it seems like the time > > for > > > > > discussion is over. This talk > > > > > appears to center largely about opinions on civil litigation. > > > > > > > > Actually, this discussion could be important if the > > responsability > > > > of Arch could potentially be involved. > > > > Nobody wants the Arch project to be sued or to be liable in > > > > some > > > > way or another. > > > > > > ...and, as I said already, it was long established that Arch is > > > not > > > liable or involved in any way. > > > > > > > > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2021-May/036236.html > > > > > > But sure, let's keep talking about ways to obscure trivial > > > patches > > to > > > mitigate phantom copyright claims. I mean, really? > > > > > > Alad > > > > I beg to differ, as 'trivial' is subjective. > > > > As long as a patch file includes a significant portion or essential > > part of the upstream code, it constitutes software redistribution, > > and > > subjects to Section 4 and 5 of GPLV3. The package > > maintainer/submitter > > is responsible. > > > > Then, if AUR or even a TU is involved in anything related to the > > patch > > file, such as modifying the patch file, AUR will become liable too. > > > > Filipe Laíns's opinion in your link is actually conforming to the > > GPL > > requirement, because he suggested to provide a notice, which should > > include copyright and warranty at a minimum. > > > > On another note, I often notice that people in this list say a > > PKGBUILD > > file doesn't have copyright. IMHO, this opinion is wrong unless > > AUR'd > > Term of Services says that the user agrees to assign the PKGBUILD > > file > > copyright to AUR while using the service. > > > > Just my two cents. Again, I am not lawyer and never made a cent > > with > > law. Instead, law made me lose quite some money..... > > > > > > > Just adding in my 2 cents. > The lines of code in the patch file is not actual code, but markers. > > To explain this to lawyer types that like splitting hairs but don't > necessarily understand programming: > > The patch program assumes you have the source that needs to be > patched handy. This means that you must have obtained the source code > to be patched before it can work, and is bound by the license of that > software. > > The lines in the patch file, while it LOOKS like source code, is > actually never executed, and only serves as a marker as to where the > changes are to be made. > It is completely useless otherwise. The patch program would very > happily edit plain text documents that are not code at all, and it > does not even understand any programming language in itself. > > In short, if you do not have the source code already, the patch won't > make it for you. If you do have it, it obviously was distributed to > you, and the lines in the patch only refers to a section of code you > already have. So, the lines in the patch file are explicitly covered > by the copyright of the source that is getting patched. > > No one is pulling a fast one, and no source is being distributed > without it's original licences. > > I may not be a lawyer, but many highly paid lawyers have looked at > patch files in great detail for decades, and could not find any > reason to sue anyone that has made patch files, ever. > > So, my unqualified position is that we are OK to distribute patches > to make software work. > > Kind regards, > -Evert Vorster-
With all due respect, while the case quoted below says otherwise, it is very possible that your opinion is confirmed in other nations/courts/cases. 'A patch is nearly an exact copy of the main file of the computer program that contains the part of the code that interacts with the security device.' https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/128/1027/2298546/ Best, Manhong
