Clarify the copyright status of PKGBUILDs
The abslibre repository have no license, nor files that clarify the copyright status.
As it's up to the projects and contributors to choose a license.
However it would also be possible to decide that the PKGBUILDs from Arch Linux and its various derivatives like Parabola are not copyrightable by having the project state it.
Statements on licensing from projects have legal consequences at least in the European Union1, so I assume that if a project states that the work they produce is not copyrightable, it would also be legally valid, and that in case of legal issues, a court of law would recognize the project decision.
In February 2020 I started a thread on the dev mailing list on this topic but I got no replies.
Since then I've got more information on the topic so I opened this bugreport to collect and centralize them.
Licenses for package definitions in other projects¶
So far I've found several projects that use licenses for package definitions. We need to document if there are also projects that consider package definitions as not copyrightable.
|Project||Package definition license|
|OpenWRT||GPLv2 or GPLv2+?|
|Yocto||MIT for the packages definitions and GPLv2 only for some other files|
Position on PKGBUILDs licensing of various contributors¶
The 19 December 2019, I was told in #archlinux that the package definitions were considered as copyrightable by some Archlinux developers, but that nobody cared enough to fix the issue by choosing a license. However I've also found inconsistencies with that position since then as Eli Schwartz told on #parabola that Eli's PKGBUILDs are not copyrightable2.
I was also told that there might be a thread on the topic in one of the Arch Linux mailing list, but I've not found a way yet to search them as mailman didn't provide a search functionality on them.
|Eli Schwartz||Unlicense||Eli's PKGBUILDs are not copyrightable, and if they are the Unlicense can be used instead2|
|GNUtoo||GPLv3+||Seeks consensus and is willing to resilience to any free software license, or agree that the PKGBUILDs are not copyrightable to follow consensus|
2 From #parabola on Freenode the 09 August 2020:
04:11 < eschwartz> > All PKGBUILD files in this repository are licensed under the Unlicense. IMHO they aren't unique enough to qualify for copyright, therefore I have made this explicit.
I'll try to keep that bugreport post updated, so I'll describe the various additions here.
Updated by bill-auger 4 months ago
i can only presume that the person who made that claim in
#archlinux was not actually on the team - if the arch package
maintainers believed that the build recipes were copyrighted,
then it seems to me that all arch-derived distros would be
illegitimate; and every user who downloads a PKGBUILD from arch
or AUR, would be guilty of a copyright violation - i find it
very difficult to believe that any sincere and responsible
software developer would claim that their work is copyrighted,
and then publish it for un-fettered re-distribution, without
reserved" notice - that would be indicative of a very
inexperienced developer, which i do not believe archlinux has
any on the team
probably more than 90% of abslibre, was adapted from the prior
work of someone outside the parabola project - without the
co-operation of arch, arch32, and archarm, the only thing we
could do, is to refrain from publishing abslibre - surely,
re-writing it all is not a viable option, right?
that leads to the heart of the matter, of course - the usual
method of re-licensing, in cases where some contributor
disagrees with the proposal, is to purge their contributions, and
re-implement the functionality under the new license - however,
there is generally little to no "wiggle-room" for creativity in
build recipes - the range of possible re-implementations, would
be as tightly constrained, as the original was, and necessarily
identical, in the most common cases - that is why such
contributions should be considered as trivial, and not
copyrightable - that extremely narrow range of "design-space", is
well below the "threshold of creativity" in all normal cases;
and so attribution was probably not required in the first place
the strict constraints placed upon packagers, in order to
execute the build successfully, are primarily and fundamentally
attributable to the upstream developers and the developers of the
build tools, but not the packager - the packager is not creating
anything novel - she is merely (re-)configuring and executing
what someone else has made - the most salient example of course,
is that one could not re-implement `./configure && make && make
install`, without also modifying the program under build, to use
another build system
directly to the ticket subject: im not sure that an explicit
statement would add very much weight to the argument; because
permission is already present implicitly, and presumed by
default, as a matter of "hacker culture" - it would also be very
difficult to find an arch user who believes that they do not
have permission to acquire a PKGBUILD from the AUR
of course, the "hacker culture" argument is fairly weak on its
own, as is the users' general belief; but the mere fact that the
arch project documentation instructs mirrors on how to
re-distribute their software, and does not require any special
formal permission to do so, demonstrates the general intention
i believe that it would be easy to argue, that everyone who has
ever contributed to arch packaging, understood fully, that their
works would be freely available, modifiable, and widely
re-distributed - if that work were done without that intention
in mind, there would be no sincere reason to offer it to arch in
the first place
even if those contributions were offered with the nefarious
intention of planting a copyright bomb, one could still argue
that they were given willingly, with the knowledge that there
would be re-distribution; and that all parties would be under
the presumption, that this "promiscuous re-distribution" was
endorsed (indeed encouraged) by the project - IMHO, that
implication alone should diffuse the bomb
i would hope, that in order to claim a copyright violation, one
would be required to demonstrate, that the copyright holder
did not intend for the accused to acquire a copy, or to
re-distribute copies - i believe that claim would be fallacious
for anything in the archlinux repositories, and that this is the
key factor in this discussion
if anyone on the archlinux team disagrees that the arch repos
are intended for unfettered re-distribution than archlinux has
a very big problem to address - perhaps, you are wise to raise
the issue; but the problem (if there is one), is not in parabola
- only archlinux could resolve this dangling ambiguity -
regardless of how much gets documented here, if the arch team is
unwilling to discuss it, than i dont see the proposal having