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 PKGBUILD in the context of a game, the ethical aspect can be answered most clearly with illegality. In the case of a PKGBULID that provides access to knowledge that is legally withheld from people living in poverty, it could be considered ethically justifiable to overlook a violation of the law. There is no clear limit as to when the support of a violation of the law by a PKGBUILD could be considered ethically legitimate, or as to when it could be considered ethically unacceptable. I'm not aware of a PKGBUILD that is ethically unclear in this way, but one day such a PKGBUILD might become a topic. Such issues were discussed way before the https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt or Arch Linux existed. In a nutshell, allowing something clearly illegal is not necessarily the same as allowing something clearly unethically. Regards, Ralf
