Sorry but I don't buy the logic here. On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 4:21 PM Robin Candau <an...@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Le 26/09/2023 à 20:11, netsysf...@das-labor.org a écrit : > > abgx360 has been deleted recently (see > > > https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-reque...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/VPDQERST63DRZFYFS7JH6YIDWXSFE5TX/#VPDQERST63DRZFYFS7JH6YIDWXSFE5TX). > I noticed it because > https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Burning_Xbox_360_games has a broken link. > > > > There are two reasons for the deletion: > > 1. Legality of home backups. Though we have stuff like popcorntime in > > the AUR or even whipper in extra, so it should not matter. > > 2. Bad licensing. > > > > There is no upstream license set, thus applying the default copyright > > rules: > > > >> You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a > >> license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all > >> rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or > >> create derivative works from your work. > > > > However, as the AUR only ships PKGBUILDs we are neither reproducing or > > distributing it and it does also not seem like a derivative work. > > Alad already poked upstream about this. > > https://github.com/BakasuraRCE/abgx360/issues/7 > > > > This was also painstakingly discussed on IRC in both -aur and -wiki, > > leading to walls of text. > > Antiz made the decision to delete in good faith and there was apparently > > also an internal discussion in the staff channel, which we agreed on > > should have been public. > > > > My opinion is that the package should be restored. I do not even use it > > and only noticed because of said dead link, yet the decision feels off. > > Antiz said that they are rethinking it, too. > > Hi, > > Thanks for bringing this up in a ML thread! > > Allow me to bring a bit more context about this whole situation and the > "painstakingly" discussion that followed: > Some time ago, we had to deal with a deletion request about an > unofficial game launcher allowing you to play the said paid game for > free (basically a pirated game and thus illegal. That was even clearly > written on upstream's website). > A quick debate has then been launched in the private TU channel at the > time to discuss whether we should reject it (and thus allow or simply > don't care about quoted "illegal" stuff on the AUR) or accept it and > take a position regarding this. > > The main argument in favor of rejecting this request basically was that > the AUR is only hosting PKGBUILDs, not the actual sources. Meaning that > we cannot be accused of redistributing illegal/copyrighted/whatever > stuff as we are actually not redistributing anything, thus we shouldn't > care about it. > > The main argument in favor of accepting this request is that, while the > AUR only hosts PKGBUILDs and not sources, and that it is made clear that > AUR packages are not officially supported; the AUR itself (meaning the > actual platform) is an official Arch ressources that is managed, > maintained and moderator by official Arch staff. As such we should keep > a good image of this official ressource and not allow such quoted > "illegal" software, whatever the reason could be: piracy, licensing > violation (like it's the case for the software listed as an example), > etc... > > As you probably guessed, my opinion goes into the above paragraph. > While the argument of "the AUR is only hosting PKGBUILDs" is valid in > situations where we would be accused of redistributing something without > the proper permissions, I personally wouldn't want the AUR to become a > privileged source to share/download/install illegal stuff because of the > gray area the above brings in term of moderation and legality. > What I'd like to highlight here is that it is an ethical matter more > than a technical/juridical one. > > In that sense, I think it's totally fine to have a spotify AUR package, > despite the fact it may not be authorized to redistribute it (because > we're not actually redistributing it, that's the whole point). > However, I don't think it's fine having "Minecraft-cracked" AUR package, > not because of the (not) redistributing part but because of ethically of > letting/allowing a **clearly** illegal package on the AUR. > > Minecraft-cracked is an extreme example because we know full well that the publisher of Minecraft intends to make an income from its sale. Such is not the case here. > By the way, I insist on the **clearly** part. To take the 2 examples > given in the initial message: I think the licensing violation/issue of > the abgx360 package was clear enough to accept its deletion. > As for whipper, I don't see any issue with it. While you can do illegal > stuff with it, a ripping software itself as nothing illegal. Everybody > own knives after all :p > As for popcorntime if it is **clearly** categorized as illegal, I would > personally vote for its removal. > > If it turns out that the GitHub user BakasauraRCE has been acting with authorization from Seacrest the entire time, it will turn out that the package is legal. So it seems that the opposite standard has been applied here. I.e. deleting a PKGBUILD unless what it links to is clearly legal. > Just a quick note about the painstakingly discussion that happened on > IRC regarding this: I do agree that such a debate should have been > discussed publicly and lead to a clear and established > statement/decision (which we'll hopefully get now that it has been > exposed here). > As such, I want to say that the decision of removing the abgx360 AUR > package was purely my own personal decision. > > To sum up, I think that the AUR itself should be maintained with the > same ethics we try to apply to the Arch project as whole. > In my opinion, stating not to care of such things can (and probably > will) be interpreted as simply allowing/accepting it. > > Now, regardless of my opinion, my primary wish there is that we're able > to conclude on an actual statement that I will accept, whatever the > final decision is. It would just be great to have a proper guideline on > this to avoid any more miss-understanding. > > -- > Regards, > Robin Candau / Antiz > >
