What is our responsibility for license violation?

thomas_stringer · 2016-12-31 00:35:02

This is in regards to this thread: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=221333

I unknowingly tried to pursue the usage of this font. Since Trilby's awesome explanation regarding the licensing of this font, I have since removed it from my machine.

With that being said, what is our responsibility regarding this violation that spans beyond here? The reason I ask is because I originally "heard about" this font (and saw it in action) on this YouTube video, one of a three part serious on i3wm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-S0cWnLBKg. That's possibly/probably the most popular video on i3wm setup and configuration. So it is without a doubt that many other i3 users are using this font as well.

What kind of action should we take to, at the very least, notify the original content owner of this violation so that others don't fall into this same mistake?

Curious as to the most prudent approach here.

P.S. Thankfully Trilby highlighted why this is a problem, but in the future how exactly could I find out this information for myself, instead of by pure happenstance like in this case? What exactly did Trilby see that showed him this was a licensing issue?

Xyne · 2016-12-31 00:50:18

I have replied in the linked thread to clarify issues of licensing regarding AUR packages*. The only responsibility that we have is to omit restricted content from our package distribution network and to prevent discussion that explicitly seeks to circumvent such restrictions. If you are so inclined, you may of course inform the content owner as well as those you perceive to be in violation of the licensing rights but that is not a (legal) responsibility (unless your local jurisdiction says otherwise).

As for getting the information yourself, find the original source and check what conditions they place on the use of their content. If you want to be rigorous, assume that anything without an explicit license is entirely restricted (and then lament the state of a world in which a license is needed every time a few neurons are fired).

* AUR packages do not distribute content (unless it is included in the PKGBUILD archive, but that is against our policy): the user directly downloads it from another source. The distribution of the resulting binary package would be in violation.

Trilby · 2016-12-31 01:03:50

The big red flag for me was that there was no license field in the PKGBUILD. That seems wrong to me regardless - so I started digging. There *is* a license. Just not one that would grant the use that PKGBUILD users would want.

Personally I see that PKGBUILD itself as a problem. We can say that we aren't hosting the material but that doesn't change the issue for me. There are other PKGBUILDs that build proprietary software - the user has to obtain the source legally first, then they can use the PKGBUILD to build it - that's fine. But in this case, the PKGBUILD downloads directly from an illegal copy of the source material.

jasonwryan · 2016-12-31 01:22:36

The PKGBUILD is also deceptive insofar as it doesn't include a source array, rather it downloads the source (fonts) in the package function. Mark for deletion, IMO.

Xyne · 2016-12-31 01:23:41

Trilby wrote:

But in this case, the PKGBUILD downloads directly from an illegal copy of the source material.

The legality depends on the jurisdiction of the user. Some jurisdictions disregard the source if the user has a right to own a copy. In this case, the secondary hosting is almost certainly a violation, but the violation is on the part of the host.

It all comes down to the distinction between linking and hosting, which has not yet been fully eroded.

edit

jasonwryan wrote:

The PKGBUILD is also deceptive insofar as it doesn't include a source array, rather it downloads the source (fonts) in the package function. Mark for deletion, IMO.

I'm confused. Which package are you looking at? All I found was this.

Last edited by Xyne (2016-12-31 01:31:47)

Mr.Elendig · 2016-12-31 21:24:50

https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8229-copywrongs_2_0

Be afraid, very afraid.

jasonwryan · 2016-12-31 21:33:22

Xyne: I just googled it and ended up with this: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/ … -mac-fonts

thomas_stringer · 2017-01-01 00:37:16

I think I'll be sticking with Inconsolata for a while. But thanks!

Arch Linux

#1 2016-12-31 00:35:02

What is our responsibility for license violation?

#2 2016-12-31 00:50:18

Re: What is our responsibility for license violation?

#3 2016-12-31 01:03:50

Re: What is our responsibility for license violation?

#4 2016-12-31 01:22:36

Re: What is our responsibility for license violation?

#5 2016-12-31 01:23:41

Re: What is our responsibility for license violation?

#6 2016-12-31 21:24:50

Re: What is our responsibility for license violation?

#7 2016-12-31 21:33:22

Re: What is our responsibility for license violation?

#8 2017-01-01 00:37:16

Re: What is our responsibility for license violation?

Board footer