On Sa, 03 Jul 2010, Scott Kitterman wrote:
No. It is ignorant anti-religious bigotry. Please take your prejudices
elsewhere, they are quite unrelated to Debian development.
Sorry .. please? Either stop insulting fellow people here, or bring
arguments, but the rubbish you wrote is as much as
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 20:54:21 +0900, Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote:
... stop insulting ...
... the rubbish you wrote ...
Hmm, very good, well done.
... or I will call for an ostracism ...
That should be entertaining -- go for it! ;-)
(at least it might be more fun than this thread
Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote:
On Sa, 03 Jul 2010, Scott Kitterman wrote:
No. It is ignorant anti-religious bigotry. Please take your prejudices
elsewhere, they are quite unrelated to Debian development.
Sorry .. please? Either stop insulting fellow people here, or bring
The above URL has the license. I think that the concepts in the preamble
are
interesting, offering software to please Allah and denying the concept of
ownership of Intellectual Property.
Which is not only non-free in Debian, we can not distribute it.
A software license is not allowed to
On 12164 March 1977, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
I really wonder how this (#579796), especially with such a license can
even be considered for going into Debian (especially seeing it in the
NEW queue yes I know, that this doesn't mean it has already been
acceptet).
Check again, this is
Am 02.07.2010 08:57, schrieb Joerg Jaspert:
The above URL has the license. I think that the concepts in the preamble
are
interesting, offering software to please Allah and denying the concept of
ownership of Intellectual Property.
Which is not only non-free in Debian, we can not
On 07/02/2010 12:53 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 00:39 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
The software is meant for non-free. Why it should be rejected?
Even non-free stuff has to pass NEW for the first upload…
See points (1-4) from my original post, which are not change
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 09:48 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
You seem to have missed some funny licenses already used in the non-free
area.
As an example, did you read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/03/msg00064.html ?
It's funny... yes... but there is no discriminatory or similar content
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 09:05 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Check again, this is meant for non-free, not main.
Still do not see how this would change anything... well of course rules
may say that we may put anything into non-free if it's distributable,...
but then we need some better rules.
Oh
On Freitag, 2. Juli 2010, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/03/msg00064.html ?
It's funny... yes... but there is no discriminatory or similar content
in it.
Huh? It clearly discriminates evil-doers!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer
cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Oh suure. We are all about freedom, but please no religional
stuff. Oh, and while we are at, get away with porn. And alcohol is bad
too, anything that can help people there, get away.
Thats not how it
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 16:12 +0430, Mohammad Ebrahim Mohammadi Panah
wrote:
I guess it's quite easy for to judge things like this using common
sense...
I don't think my common sense is anything near yours. Isn't Debian
supposed to be for all of us?
Well... then apparently at least not for the
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:12:55 +0430, Mohammad Ebrahim Mohammadi Panah
ebra...@mohammadi.ir wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer
cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Oh suure. We are all about freedom, but please no religional
stuff. Oh, and while we are at, get away with
Le vendredi 02 juillet 2010 à 13:25 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer a
écrit :
4) The license is extremely anti-American, and I guess also
anti-European/anti-Western.
Doesnt matter.
Although you may be right from the what allows non-free point of view,..
but in all doing respect,.. this
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Matthias Klumpp matth...@nlinux.org wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:12:55 +0430, Mohammad Ebrahim Mohammadi Panah
ebra...@mohammadi.ir wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer
cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Oh suure. We are all about
On 07/02/2010 06:33 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Freitag, 2. Juli 2010, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/03/msg00064.html ?
It's funny... yes... but there is no discriminatory or similar content
in it.
Huh? It clearly discriminates evil-doers!
I
Check again, this is meant for non-free, not main.
Still do not see how this would change anything... well of course rules
may say that we may put anything into non-free if it's distributable,...
but then we need some better rules.
Every DD can start a GR to change the rules. To drop
On Freitag, 2. Juli 2010, Ron Johnson wrote:
Huh? It clearly discriminates evil-doers!
I *think* that's sarcasm, but not sure...
No. Why?
What $you think is evil $I might think is not. So if $you discriminate
evil-doing, you discriminate $me.
I dont get why one discrimination of use cases
Le vendredi 02 juillet 2010 à 19:42 +0200, Holger Levsen a écrit :
On Freitag, 2. Juli 2010, Ron Johnson wrote:
Huh? It clearly discriminates evil-doers!
I *think* that's sarcasm, but not sure...
No. Why?
What $you think is evil $I might think is not. So if $you discriminate
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:05:52AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Oh suure. We are all about freedom, but please no religional
stuff. Oh, and while we are at, get away with porn. And alcohol is bad
too, anything that can help people there, get away.
Thats not how it works, we cant ask
Hey
Well I guess that it's much easier to judge what's evil and what's not.
Typically all peoples that took part in the Enlightenment a scientific
development came to similar rules, which you can find things like:
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- European Convention on Human Rights
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Hey
Well I guess that it's much easier to judge what's evil and what's not.
Typically all peoples that took part in the Enlightenment a scientific
development came to similar rules, which you can find things like:
- Universal
Hi.
WTF?!
I really wonder how this (#579796), especially with such a license can
even be considered for going into Debian (especially seeing it in the
NEW queue yes I know, that this doesn't mean it has already been
acceptet).
1) I'm generally quite sceptical about putting religious stuff
Am 02.07.2010 00:21, schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer:
4) The license is extremely anti-American, and I guess also
anti-European/anti-Western.
IMHO I think it does not comply with the DFSG, but it is still in NEW
and I trust the ftp-masters, that it will be rejected.
I don't see a reason to
On 07/02/2010 12:34 AM, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
Am 02.07.2010 00:21, schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer:
4) The license is extremely anti-American, and I guess also
anti-European/anti-Western.
IMHO I think it does not comply with the DFSG, but it is still in
NEW and I trust the ftp-masters,
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:21:51AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
1) I'm generally quite sceptical about putting religious stuff into
Debian (regardless of which religion we're talking about). This simply
opens the gates for so many problems, politically, morally, etc.
Perhaps a
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 00:34 +0200, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
There are also groups of people, which see porn as quite problematic at
all, but we have got pornviewer e.g.. The software does not discrimate
anyone, so why should we care about it?
Good argument...
The question however is,... who
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
3) The license contains many places which can be considered
discriminatory, racist or fundamentalist.
Apart from that... religious stuff shouldn't go into a license.
http://www.ojuba.org/wiki/waqf/license
The above URL
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:21:51AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
2) How can the ftp-masters actually check whether this complies with the
DFSG. As far as I can see from the English translation, it is not
legally binding, and only the Arabic version is.
I guess none of our ftp-masters
Am 02.07.2010 00:45, schrieb Russell Coker:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
3) The license contains many places which can be considered
discriminatory, racist or fundamentalist.
Apart from that... religious stuff shouldn't go into a license.
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 00:39 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
The software is meant for non-free. Why it should be rejected? Even
non-free stuff has to pass NEW for the first upload…
See points (1-4) from my original post, which are not change at all by
using non-free.
I mean even something like:
The
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 22:45 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
I believe there is precedent for this. I remember seeing a program
under a license written entirely in Japanese. When translated by a DD
fluent in Japanese, it was found to be a simple 3-clause BSD-style
license which is entirely
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:56:50AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Furthermore,
such restrictions are unenforcable under US copyright law
But Debian is not (only) under US law.
This is true. That's why I said: Copyright law may differ in other
countries. I'm just pointing out that
On Fr, 02 Jul 2010, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
I really wonder how this (#579796), especially with such a license can
even be considered for going into Debian (especially seeing it in the
NEW queue yes I know, that this doesn't mean it has already been
acceptet).
One more data point
Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Hi.
WTF?!
I really wonder how this (#579796), especially with such a license can
even be considered for going into Debian (especially seeing it in the
NEW queue yes I know, that this doesn't mean it has already been
acceptet).
I trust
35 matches
Mail list logo
