[SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

ewaller · 2011-10-29 21:26:43

synthead wrote:

ttf-vista-fonts would also need to be removed then, since the EULA states that the fonts may only be used with the PowerPoint viewer (which is downloaded to get the fonts).

Good point

chris_l · 2011-10-30 00:18:34

synthead wrote:

ttf-vista-fonts would also need to be removed then, since the EULA states that the fonts may only be used with the PowerPoint viewer (which is downloaded to get the fonts).

well, checking the eula:

a. General. You may install and use any number of copies of the software on your devices. You may use the software only to view and print files created with Microsoft Office software. You may not use the software for any other purpose.
b. Distribution. You may copy and distribute the software, provided that:
• each copy is complete and unmodified, including presentation of this agreement for each user's acceptance; and
• you indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Microsoft and its affiliates and suppliers from any claims, including attorneys’ fees, related to your distribution of the software.

I didn't see any mention to the fonts, unless the fonts count as software. (there is not a contract definition of software there) The distribution rules only requires you to not delete any file and to do a "presentation of this agreement for each user's acceptance",
so, instead of the autoinstall that has right now, a "less eula.txt" and a question like "do you accept the terms? Y/n" in the pkgbuild would be enough. I don't see reason to delete it.

here is the eula, (in case im missing something) http://pastebin.com/d9xUQtjd

jocheem67 · 2011-10-30 00:36:14

Whatever one thinks of copyright/acta/dmca/privacy/rapidshare/torrents/julian/foss/licenses and so on and and so on...please leave arch out of it. Non-political please...this is tech and only tech.

karol · 2011-10-30 00:41:53

jocheem67 wrote:

Whatever one thinks of copyright/acta/dmca/privacy/rapidshare/torrents/julian/foss/licenses and so on and and so on...please leave arch out of it. Non-political please...this is tech and only tech.

No, it's not only tech, licenses matter too.

ewaller · 2011-10-30 01:20:10

chris_l wrote:

...I didn't see any mention to the fonts, unless the fonts count as software. ...

Of course they do.

trontonic · 2011-10-31 15:11:20

I think "the Ioni solution" solves it. It's okay to create PKGBUILDS for all kinds of software, but don't provide a download link in the source=() array, just the filename, if it's commercial/abandonware/gray area.

karol · 2011-11-01 12:57:01

When AUR gets the license search we could check all the Abandonware-licensed packages.
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/ … 01894.html

olive · 2011-11-01 13:28:10

Awebb wrote:

We don't need a rule against warez, as warez are illegal in most states, especially in the one hosting the server. Is common sense that uncommon these days, that we need rules for the obvious?

The situation can be far from clear. Distributing a warez software is indeed illegal in almost all countries. Using a warez downloaded file privately is in a grey area in many countries. For example it is legal to download and use pirated music privately in Switzerland (but the same does not apply for software). In Belgium the situation is unclear. I have read that no law forbid to download and use a pirated file ( http://www.blog-du-geek.com/index.php/g … -belgique/ ). Is putting a link to a pirated file illegal? Maybe, maybe not... (Google make that quite often without apparently much problems). I am not convinced however about the difference between putting a direct link to a pirated file and suggesting to use Google to find it: in both cases it is a way to tell the user how to find it; making it slightly more difficult does not change the situation fundamentally.

Common sense is not always what we think of. A clear rule would be better.

Last edited by olive (2011-11-01 13:34:47)

ewaller · 2011-11-04 18:17:05

synthead wrote:

I completely agree. Since the law differs, our "measures" would really just be censorship. The PKGBUILD scripts only help you package software, not download it or use it. Even if a PKGBUILD has a link to a cracked, non-distributable version of software, there's nothing illegal about the script itself. Kind of the "guns don't kill people" mentality.

Your post at 10:53:56 did not really vanish. I think you hit the "report" link rather than the "Reply" link. It happens...

karol · 2011-11-04 18:21:55

synthead wrote:

I completely agree. Since the law differs, our "measures" would really just be censorship. The PKGBUILD scripts only help you package software, not download it or use it. Even if a PKGBUILD has a link to a cracked, non-distributable version of software, there's nothing illegal about the script itself. Kind of the "guns don't kill people" mentality.

If we know it's not abandonware because you can still buy this game, is it OK for us to keep such packages in the AUR + the links to the "abandonware" binaries?
Or do I, as a user, have to check if it's really abandoware or is it pure stealing?

Last edited by karol (2011-11-04 18:22:55)

ewaller · 2011-11-04 18:22:27

17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 (a)(2) provides:

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

IANAL, YMMV

olive · 2011-11-04 19:34:26

I would not put a link to a warez file, nor would I suggest to use Google to find it.

But I really think that putting a clear rule would be better. Many users in this forum take the law from a US centric point of view but archlinux should not be US centric. I do not think we can/should respect the law of every country in the world. I think it is illegal in Iran for a woman to appear without the islamic veil. Should we ban any image of a woman not wearing the islamic veil? I think not.

I think archlinux should put a clear rule about what it really accept. I suggest something consensual that everyone here could accept, it should not be particularly difficult. But I am very uncomfortable to explicitly refer to the law of a particular country.

Last edited by olive (2011-11-04 19:42:25)

jasonwryan · 2011-11-04 19:41:14

olive wrote:

Many users in this forum take the law from a US centric point of view but archlinux should not be US centric.

In terms of where the servers are hosted, the jurisdiction they fall under and Arch's status as a non-profit entity, that US-centricism is understandable and justified.

Last edited by jasonwryan (2011-11-04 19:41:27)

karol · 2011-11-04 19:41:16

olive wrote:

II think archlinux should put a clear rule about what it really accept. I suggest something consensual that everyone here could accept, it should not be particularly difficult. But I am very uncomfortable to explicitly refer to the law of a particular country.

Just because you don't agree with some law doesn't mean you can't be sued. If AUR server is located in the US and it's illegal to do sth according to the US law, we should either comply or move the server somewhere else (like it happened with strong cryptography) not to endanger Arch-affiliated US citizens.

olive · 2011-11-04 19:49:55

karol wrote:

olive wrote:
II think archlinux should put a clear rule about what it really accept. I suggest something consensual that everyone here could accept, it should not be particularly difficult. But I am very uncomfortable to explicitly refer to the law of a particular country.
Just because you don't agree with some law doesn't mean you can't be sued. If AUR server is located in the US and it's illegal to do sth according to the US law, we should either comply or move the server somewhere else (like it happened with strong cryptography) not to endanger Arch-affiliated US citizens.

You miss the point; I can accept that the consensual rule provided by archlinux include the US law. But it should also include the law of every country archlinux has a mirror in (at least one mentioned in mirrolist). For example it is illegal in Europe to have a Nazi image and a European can be sued if he download one from an archlinux mirror. So I think that archlinux should not put such image on its servers for the very reason you mention. But to know if something is allowed, the user should refer to a rule provided by archlinux, not supposing that the user know every law of every country where archlinux has a server. For some countries, it is not reasonably possible to follow its law and archlinux should be careful about these.

Last edited by olive (2011-11-04 19:51:30)

karol · 2011-11-04 19:54:59

@olive
Are we still talking about AUR? I don't think that we have AUR mirrors, unless you count e.g. http://aur3.org/ in.

olive · 2011-11-04 20:01:13

karol wrote:

@olive
Are we still talking about AUR? I don't think that we have AUR mirrors, unless you count e.g. http://aur3.org/ in.

Would it not be better to have the same rule everywhere? Moreover my idea is to only put thing that are legal in all "reasonable" countries and that include European countries. I do not think archlinux would suffer from not distributing things that are in a grey aera. I think it would be better to have a clear consensual rule that make everything legal everywhere once for all.

Last edited by olive (2011-11-04 20:02:34)

karol · 2011-11-04 20:04:58

Sure, this question has been posted to the ML but no rule has been provided, that's why I'm not asking to remove e.g. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 1#p1008451 just yet.

karol · 2011-11-05 03:59:15

olive wrote:

think it would be better to have a clear consensual rule that make everything legal everywhere once for all.

I doubt the rule would make sure it's 100% legal in every country and sure as hell the law changes (e.g. cryptography export law) so as much as you would like to have a definite answer with regard to what can be distributed via AUR, it's not forthcoming.

In the end it's up to the user to decide whether he uses something or not, he should know the law of his country and he might decide against using some package if he thinks it's not fair, even if it's legal.

As for your European Nazi ban example, if you downloaded nazipic.jpg you might be in trouble, but if it was for some reason included in some package that had nothing to do with Nazis and you can reasonably justify you had no idea it was there, you should be free of any legal problems. Even if upstream doesn't remove the offending picture, you can mention this issue to the package maintainer and ask him to provide a patched version or upload one yourself. There are many packages in the AUR that go like: foo-nox, foo-mt, foo-no-gnome-deps etc. so bar-nonazipic should be fine too.

trontonic · 2011-11-06 19:07:10

karol, unfortunately my license search patch was rejected, since the main AUR developers didn't think it was needed.

karol · 2011-11-06 20:31:01

trontonic wrote:

karol, unfortunately my license search patch was rejected, since the main AUR developers didn't think it was needed.

Thanks for the info.
I think we can still use e.g. aur3. Packages using license: custom-freeware Abandonware:
abandonia-menu
alone-in-the-dark-1
battle-chess
discworld
jazz-jackrabbit-2
kings-quest-1-agd-remake
kings-quest-2-agd-remake
kings-quest-3-agd-remake
legend-of-kyrandia-1
legend-of-kyrandia-2
legend-of-kyrandia-3
leisure-suit-larry
quest-for-glory-2
reunion-1
space-quest-1
starwars-chess
starwars-vector-arcade
the-imagination-network
the-incredible-machine-1
the-incredible-machine-2

Should we request deletion of packages that violate https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … the_AUR.3F or post a comment (if there are not orphaned) asking maintainer to comply and e.g. remove the link to the source?

Awebb · 2011-11-06 21:27:20

No abandonware, but freeware:
- kings-quest-1-agd-remake
- kings-quest-2-agd-remake
- kings-quest-3-agd-remake

Discworld:
- Psygnosis
- Was bought by Sony
- Since it's a PSX title as well, they might get wet because of PSN sales of "classic" games in their own playstation emulator
→ not totally abandoned, although the source code was released and they "thought about" making it freeware.

{Space,Kings,Police} Quest and Leissure suit Larry:
- Sierra On-Line
- aquired by Vivendi
- merged with Activision Blizzard
- Activision and Vivendi never tried to make any money out of those series
- The last Space Quest box was sold in 1998 (by Sierra)
- Leissure Suit Larry is now being maintained by Codemasters (or "was"), but the original Sierra games aren't sold anymore
→ abandoned

Battle Chess:
- Interplay
- They recently won a case against TopWare Interactice, because of a similar new game (Battle vs. Chess) and won. The new game may now not be sold in the US (which is sad, it uses Fritz 11 and has a higher elo rating than Kasparov :-D)
→ does not really look abandoned

I don't know the rest.

karol · 2011-11-06 21:38:27

Awebb wrote:

- The last Space Quest box was sold in 1998 (by Sierra)

Is this the same Space Quest you're talking about? It's a digital download and not a box, but does it make a difference?

Awebb · 2011-11-07 13:38:12

You're right. I hereby announce the death of abandonware. RIP.

karol · 2011-12-01 19:26:11

megadriver wrote:

Let's see...
Alone in the Dark can be purchased here.
Battle Chess can be purchased here.
Space Quest can be purchased here.
The Incredible Machine and The Incredible Machine 2 can be purchased here.
If we define "abandonware" as "software no longer available for purchase", at least those five above are clearly not "abandonware"...

What should we do with these and similar packages? They're still available in the AUR and provide a link to Abandonia download.

Arch Linux

#26 2011-10-29 21:26:43

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#27 2011-10-30 00:18:34

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#28 2011-10-30 00:36:14

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#29 2011-10-30 00:41:53

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#30 2011-10-30 01:20:10

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#31 2011-10-31 15:11:20

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#32 2011-11-01 12:57:01

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#33 2011-11-01 13:28:10

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#34 2011-11-04 18:17:05

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#35 2011-11-04 18:21:55

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#36 2011-11-04 18:22:27

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#37 2011-11-04 19:34:26

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#38 2011-11-04 19:41:14

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#39 2011-11-04 19:41:16

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#40 2011-11-04 19:49:55

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#41 2011-11-04 19:54:59

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#42 2011-11-04 20:01:13

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#43 2011-11-04 20:04:58

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#44 2011-11-05 03:59:15

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#45 2011-11-06 19:07:10

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#46 2011-11-06 20:31:01

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#47 2011-11-06 21:27:20

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#48 2011-11-06 21:38:27

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#49 2011-11-07 13:38:12

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

#50 2011-12-01 19:26:11

Re: [SOLVED] Is Ok to put "abandonware" on the AUR?

Board footer