On Fri, May 21, 2021, 4:47 PM Паша <pavel.finkelsht...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > пт, 21 мая 2021 г., 23:40 Manhong Dai via aur-general < > aur-general@lists.archlinux.org>: > >> On Fri, May 21, 2021, 4:36 PM mar77i via aur-general < >> aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote: >> >> > -‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 10:25 PM, Manhong Dai via aur-general < >> > aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote: >> > > IMHO, as it is very tricky to distribute a patch file without >> copyright, >> > a >> > > better solution for AUR maintainers is to creat patch files including >> the >> > > upstream copyright and then host the files somewhere else. AUR will >> not >> > be >> > > liable to such legal headache anymore, and the patch file owner enjoys >> > the >> > > deserved credit all by himself while taking the full liability too. >> After >> > > all, AUR seems to be a public community for now and TU works for free >> for >> > > now too. >> > >> > You know how fugly that is? If my domain where I store my source code >> gets >> > nuked because I get hit by a bus, nobody else may know what the patch's >> > content was. Sure, I could be less "anti-social" and just use github >> like >> > too many other people, but I don't like being forced to do so. There >> was a >> > similar discussion on the topic in the pypi community recently, where >> the >> > problem of too many things hosted elsewhere is raised in the same way. >> > >> > >> > >> https://discuss.python.org/t/what-to-do-about-gpus-and-the-built-distributions-that-support-them/7125 >> >> >> As long as other people ever downloaded your patch files, everything is >> fine no matter your website is nuked or you get hit by a bus. >> >> >> Actually your logic applies to AUR too, are you worried about AUR is >> nuked? >> >> Best, >> Manhong >> >> > >> > >> > cheers! >> > mar77i >> > >> > >> > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. >> > >> > > With all due respect I want to remind you that law has not only the > letter, but also a spirit. And when RMS was advocating for GPL he always > kept in mind how the story had begun: he wasn't able to fix error in the > printer firmware cause it was proprietary. And the whole idea of GPL was > ability for user to change the software. > > And also it was always about freedom and availability of course AND > knowledge. Saying that we should not teach other users how they can modify > source code they have is bad for the freedom and breaks both of these > principles. > Thanks a lot for teaching me not to teach others! Actually I am not teaching anyone as I said I know nothing about law and it is just my humble opinion. Best, Manhong >
