On Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 7:33 AM Manhong Dai <da...@umich.edu> wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:02 AM <not...@aur.archlinux.org> 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 > > Request #22028 has been rejected by Foxboron [1]:
Patches has been removed. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Foxboron/ Thanks! @Foxboron. it is all good as long as my original work is not involved now. As programmers, I always respect and acknowledge other people's work and expect the same from others. Truly appreciate those who helped me, including a few users who forwarded me the emails on this list. Or I probably will never know such an email list exists. So sorry I cannot mention your names as I just got 1000+ mail list subscription confirmation in one day. I also want to say sorry to those who feel these are spams. The thing is this kind of issues will happen from time to time as AUR doesn't associate a project with user name. I hope a little waste of your time will set a good AUR standard from now on. This is a good lesson for me too, as I will put copyright/license on all my work, no matter it is MIT, GPL or BSD, and should have published my work originally on github. SGE will be continued on my github project as I will make it more Linux friendly and totally ditch some unnecessary features, such as Windows support, whenever I find nothing better to do. As I added cmake compiling support recently, followup development will be much easier. Have a good day! Feel free to send me email directly at da...@umich.edu. Best, Manhong PS, If someone wants to subscribe me on another 1000+ email lists again, please find some truly interesting ones. My hobbies are hunting, fishing and racing. Thanks in advance!
