Re: Dealing with unclear upstream licensing and legality

2023-09-26 Thread aur
Hi, I'm gonna start with I'm not a lawyer, and realistically the best answer provided should be from a German (Arch project TOS list German laws to be followed) or US (SPI nonprofit owns the domain and financial accounts) lawyer. The issue I think will always exist as to what does a platform

Re: Dealing with unclear upstream licensing and legality

2023-09-26 Thread Connor Behan
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 12:03 AM Aaron Liu wrote: > How do "home backups" fall under fair-use? How can you maintain > plausible deniability when there's an entire AUR request IRC discussion > and mailing list chain about it? > > Discs don't last forever. How do home backups *not* fall under fair

Re: Dealing with unclear upstream licensing and legality

2023-09-26 Thread Aaron Liu
How do "home backups" fall under fair-use? How can you maintain plausible deniability when there's an entire AUR request IRC discussion and mailing list chain about it? On 2023/9/26 20:32, David C. Rankin wrote: On 9/26/23 13:11, netsysf...@das-labor.org wrote: There are two reasons for the

Re: Dealing with unclear upstream licensing and legality

2023-09-26 Thread David C. Rankin
On 9/26/23 13:11, netsysf...@das-labor.org wrote: 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. Fair-use prevails. 2. Bad licensing. Plausible deniability -- David

Re: Dealing with unclear upstream licensing and legality

2023-09-26 Thread Robin Candau
Le 26/09/2023 à 22:02, Connor Behan a écrit : Sorry but I don't buy the logic here. That's fine, that thread is there to debate :D On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 4:21 PM Robin Candau > wrote: Le 26/09/2023 à 20:11, netsysf...@das-labor.org

Re: Dealing with unclear upstream licensing and legality

2023-09-26 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Tue, 2023-09-26 at 21:23 +0200, Robin Candau wrote: > 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. Hi, in the case of a

Re: Dealing with unclear upstream licensing and legality

2023-09-26 Thread Connor Behan
Sorry but I don't buy the logic here. On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 4:21 PM Robin Candau wrote: > Le 26/09/2023 à 20:11, netsysf...@das-labor.org a écrit : > > abgx360 has been deleted recently (see > > >

Re: Dealing with unclear upstream licensing and legality

2023-09-26 Thread Robin Candau
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

Dealing with unclear upstream licensing and legality

2023-09-26 Thread netsysfire
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