Post by Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general Post by Eli Schwartz via arch-general
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
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.
(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 ). 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...