On Sat, May 22, 2021, 3:52 PM Miguel Revilla Rodríguez via aur-general < aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
> El sáb, 22 may 2021 a las 20:51, Yangjun Wang via aur-general (< > aur-general@lists.archlinux.org>) escribió: > > > > > Not a lawyer here, but here is my opinion on the matter. > > > > I do not remember the GPL license stating anything about "sensible > > modifications", and while I do partly understand how some people are not > > happy about the certain clauses in some of these licenses, it is > > important to remember that these licenses have legal effects, while > > individual opinions on what modifications are "sensible" and what are > > not do not have any legal effect in most cases. Personal opinions for or > > against the chosen license do not excuse anyone from disobeying the > > license as long as the license applies (of which the details may vary > > depending on the country), in the same way "I hate person X" is in not > > an (legally) accepted reason for killing the particular person in most > > cases, although this comparison might be a bit extreme. > > > > Basically, if you have anything against the license of a software, write > > to the author about it or do not use the software. Period. > > > > > Not a lawyer either, but I think that the discussion, while really > interesting, is missing a couple of core points regarding the license: > > a) Arch is not distributing the source code of the software in any form, > modified or not > b) Arch is not distributing a compiled version of the software either. I repectfully disagree. In this case the package maintainer had a patch file which includes some source code. Thus, Arch AUR is distributing modified source code. > And, as it happens that the GPL (as well as most OS licenses out there) is > about distribution and not about (custom/personal) use, I really can't see > how on Earth it is being violated. > > The point is that Arch (AUR) is just distributing: > > $ wget foo.bar/foobar.tgz > $ tar xvf foobar.tgz > $ [sed s/foo/bar/|patch < foobar.patch|whatever] > $ make > > If the result of that never leaves the computer in which it was executed, > where is the distribution element? > > I can take ANY GPL software out there, make as many modifications as I like > (I can even change the copyright notice and put a string saying that it > belongs to my dog) and, as long as it never leaves my computer, I am still > fully compliant with the license. If upstream doesn't like me to mess with > their code, then maybe they shouldn't publish the code in the first place, > but there's not a single reason to try to forbid some others (AUR) to > publish A SCRIPT that helps people build custom binary versions not > intended to be distributed in any way. What would happen then with the > PKGBUILDs that are downloading, modifying (yep, modifying to the point of > removing/changing binary libraries, using patchelf, etc.) and repackaging > proprietary software? > > In short, regarding upstream's request... nothing to see here, please > disperse. > > Best, > > Miguel >
