On 05/29/2018 10:27 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general wrote: > Em maio 29, 2018 8:27 Eli Schwartz via arch-general escreveu: >> >> I'm of the opinion that there cannot be a license requirement for reuse >> at all, since it's not original enough, and explicitly clarify this in >> https://github.com/eli-schwartz/pkgbuilds#copyright >> > > Well, I never thought about licensing PKGBUILD's. Honestly, I don't > think we need a license. > But, perhaps, considering the implications of this request, we can > discuss about one. I'm not > against it, and we currently have ways for someone to do this. > > Thinking from the technical standpoint, I just don't want our servers to > be even more hammered > with API requests than they are, specially the AUR. > > Regards, > Giancarlo Razzolini (IANAL) While every single PKGBUILD file may be trivial enough and thus does not require a license, the aggregation of them is actually significant. For now, let's see them as data files as they are in the database. without an explicit license, under the US copyright law, the owner has all rights reserved, including the right to "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords" and to "distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending" (see [1]). I think this can be eventually harmful for ArchLinux. For example, one can host an internal mirror for ArchLinux repositories without signing explicit agreement with the owner of the repository data. Even, as a user, downloading repository data is a form of reproducing. It might be good if developers have to agree to license PKGBUILD files under a certain license when they are uploading packages (again, I Am Not A Lawyer). But someone should consult a lawyer to do all these... [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 Hong
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
