AUR web interface

Tasklist

FS#12119 - Scripts submitted to the AUR should be under a license by default

Attached to Project: AUR web interface
Opened by Greg (dolby) - Friday, 14 November 2008, 10:26 GMT
Last edited by Loui Chang (louipc) - Monday, 17 November 2008, 21:47 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Backend
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity High
Priority Normal
Reported Version 1.5.1
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Lately i noticed that most of the scripts i have submitted to the AUR, and later dropped, were picked up by others who have conviniently scratched my personal data from the script and added theirs. Thats totally uneceptable. Even if you see PKGBUILDs in official repos they carry contributor data from way back in 2002.
Should we start adding licenses to the scripts too?
The most convinient way would be to have a license for anything that gets submitted to the AUR, instead of adding lines inside PKGBUILDs.

All scripts submitted to the AUR must be under a license by default.

I suggest a notice on the front page like " All content submitted to the site is licenced under the GPL version 3 or later" or something similar.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Loui Chang (louipc)
Monday, 17 November 2008, 21:47 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  This is outside the scope of AUR code itself.
Comment by Loui Chang (louipc) - Friday, 14 November 2008, 17:03 GMT
This is a bit of a political decision that I'm not too sure how to go about.
I think I would prefer no guarantee and no license to any content submitted
to AUR unless it's non user created content, like a readme or help file that
was taken from a website that wasn't in the tarball.

I don't think there's any way we could pull a GPL3 on PKGBUILDs though.
Who will monitor and police changes? How will they do that exactly with
thousands of PKGBUILDs?

Most of AUR is called unsupported for several reasons.
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Friday, 14 November 2008, 17:23 GMT
So what do you think is the best way to protect the contributors?
GPL is actually not the best license for this cause it requires a copy of the license to accompany the script.
A BSD style license or some other license might be best.
Comment by Loui Chang (louipc) - Monday, 17 November 2008, 21:46 GMT
If you're going to apply any license to a PKGBUILD you probably should include
it in the PKGBUILD. If a contributor wants to keep his/her name in the PKGBUILD
then he/she should really continue to maintain it.

For the most part PKGBUILDs are trivial and I don't see the need to retain your
name in them. You could ask the new maintainer to put your name back perhaps.

Anyways, this really isn't a discussion for aur-dev, or the bug tracker in general.
Perhaps you should move the discussion to aur-general@archlinux.org.

Loading...