Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
"Christoph Anton Mitterer" 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 Declaration of Human Rights >- European Convention on Human Rights >- as well as the human rights found in the constitutions of many western >countries (as well as some others). > >It may sound arrogant, but what ever contradicts such rules or tries to >abolish them is evil. > > >But I guess this discussion leads to nothing so back to this special >case... > > > > >I'm not against religious software in Debian per se, but as with many >other things that we do not accept (see Debian Multimedia) or patented >stuff, it's always a big danger. > >Why don't we then include legally questionable packages like aacskeys or >dumphd in Debian? Their license should be fine, and there are surely >some countries around the world in which they're legal. > >It's always the question where to make the cut. Someone mentioned >pornography as an example. I guess we allow this because it's legal in >most countries. What would we do with a package "child-pornography" in >Debian if the license is GPL? > >Many people feel discriminated even by seeing or living with religious >people (e.g. in Germany and Europe there is the long standing issue of >having the christian cross in schools). Would we e.g. accept it if all >the Desktop wallpaper packages contain the star of david? >Guess that the countries of some that argued here that Debian is for >all, would be the first that completely forbid Debian... > >I think that computing itself an in the end also Debian originates from >and grounds on top of the ideas of what I noted above: Enlightenment, >natural sciences, et cetera. >And all this is not (or should not be) under law of any god, or the >pope, or Sharia or whatever. > >If something obviously fights those idea, it looses (IMHO) the right to >take. >Which leads me to close the circle and come to and end: >If license is clearly against all in what we all (hopefully) believe, >even if it's just the preamble or an upstream who seems to have the >impression that we should bow to some other "rules"... then personally >I'd prefer to close the doors. > >Ah and again, this is definitely not anti-Islamism... if I'd see similar >things from other religions or creationism or e.g. Nazis,... I'd say the >same. > No. It is ignorant anti-religious bigotry. Please take your prejudices elsewhere, they are quite unrelated to Debian development. Scott K Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50f67b54-8072-44e6-bcf8-b01f0016c...@email.android.com
Bug#587947: ITP: jme -- high performance scenegraph based graphics java API
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Gabriele Giacone <1o5g4...@gmail.com> * Package name: jme Version : 2.0.1 Upstream Author : jME Team * URL : http://www.jmonkeyengine.com * License : BSD Programming Lang: Java Description : high performance scenegraph based graphics java API The jMonkey Engine framework (jME) is a high-performance, 3D scenegraph based graphics API, written in Java. jME was built to fulfill the lack of full featured graphics engines written in Java. Using an abstraction layer, it allows any rendering system to be plugged in. It supports both LWJGL and JOGL OpenGL rendering systems. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100703035436.13577.59320.report...@phenomenon.
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 - as well as the human rights found in the constitutions of many western countries (as well as some others). It may sound arrogant, but what ever contradicts such rules or tries to abolish them is evil. But I guess this discussion leads to nothing so back to this special case... I'm not against religious software in Debian per se, but as with many other things that we do not accept (see Debian Multimedia) or patented stuff, it's always a big danger. Why don't we then include legally questionable packages like aacskeys or dumphd in Debian? Their license should be fine, and there are surely some countries around the world in which they're legal. It's always the question where to make the cut. Someone mentioned pornography as an example. I guess we allow this because it's legal in most countries. What would we do with a package "child-pornography" in Debian if the license is GPL? Many people feel discriminated even by seeing or living with religious people (e.g. in Germany and Europe there is the long standing issue of having the christian cross in schools). Would we e.g. accept it if all the Desktop wallpaper packages contain the star of david? Guess that the countries of some that argued here that Debian is for all, would be the first that completely forbid Debian... I think that computing itself an in the end also Debian originates from and grounds on top of the ideas of what I noted above: Enlightenment, natural sciences, et cetera. And all this is not (or should not be) under law of any god, or the pope, or Sharia or whatever. If something obviously fights those idea, it looses (IMHO) the right to take. Which leads me to close the circle and come to and end: If license is clearly against all in what we all (hopefully) believe, even if it's just the preamble or an upstream who seems to have the impression that we should bow to some other "rules"... then personally I'd prefer to close the doors. Ah and again, this is definitely not anti-Islamism... if I'd see similar things from other religions or creationism or e.g. Nazis,... I'd say the same. Bye (at least for this discussion), Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1278115620.23724.30.ca...@fermat.scientia.net
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 anyone putting things in main to not > discriminate against persons/groups/fields and then discriminate on our > own. This is a false analogy. We can, do, and *should* discriminate regarding the software that we distribute. It's discrimination when we say that some license terms are acceptable for main and some aren't; we discriminate when we say that a piece of software is too buggy to support and kick it out of the archive; we even practice a form of discrimination against specific upstreams who we don't trust to act in good faith under the law. The issue isn't whether it's consistent with our ideals to be selective about (discriminate against) the license terms of works included in non-free. Rather, it's that there's no hope of us getting a consensus on what kinds of license terms should be prohibited in non-free. Everyone has their own opinion, and many of those are mutually exclusive. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#587929: ITP: bombardier-core-1.00 -- Open Source Configuration management and package delivery (shared components)
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Peter Banka * Package name: bombardier-core-1.00 Version : 1.0.762 Upstream Author : Peter Banka * URL : http://www.bombardierinstaller.org/ * License : BSD Programming Lang: Python Description : Open Source Configuration management and package delivery (shared components) Bombardier is a software system that delivers visibility, control and automation to datacenter environments. Bombardier provides a means for changes to be rolled out to a network of servers in a highly controlled way, providing optimum security, logging, centralized change control. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100702203612.11732.92792.report...@superstallion.ge-is-beta.com
Re: Removal of not+kfreebsd and linux-gnu dependency, bugs already filled
* Julien Cristau | 2010-07-02 16:20:24 [+0100]: >> This started as Kyle (Cc) filled #585767 because some packages failed to >> build on powerpcspe (not official, in debian-ports atm). The gnu >> triplet there is powerpc-linux-gnuspe so type-handling provides >> not+linux-gnu. This is also the case for armel since its triplet ends >> with gnueabi. > >Sounds like a bug in type-handling to me. Yep, that what we though in the beginning. However the match we get is - i.e. the $hostos. This is not gnu but gnueabi in the armel case. So the bug is actually to use linux-gnu while one really meant linux which is correctly provided by the type-handling package. >Cheers, >Julien Sebastian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100702211829.gb20...@chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 > evil-doing, you discriminate $me. And what about those who think that doing evil is good? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone, `-[…] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 ("dont do evil") should
be "funny" while the other discriminination ("dont be evil in the sense of
islam") is unacceptable.
cheers!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Removal of not+kfreebsd and linux-gnu dependency, bugs already filled
[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior] > Since Debian-Policy 3.9.0 architecture wild cards are allowed so this > dependency would become > libudev-dev (>= 0.139) [linux-any] > and the type-handling aliases (which are hack according to #585767) > could go. Based on this and the fact that some packages are already > using them I filled some bugs [0]. Policy only allows these wildcards for the build-time fields. In libgnomevfs2-dev (subject of bug 587877), it is a regular Depends:, and your wildcard solution will not work. Unless, that is, dpkg-gencontrol expands the wildcard appropriately at build time - but I don't think it does. -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100702154844.ga2...@p12n.org
Re: Bug#587877: Removal of not+kfreebsd and linux-gnu dependency, bugs already filled
Le vendredi 02 juillet 2010 à 10:48 -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit : > Policy only allows these wildcards for the build-time fields. In > libgnomevfs2-dev (subject of bug 587877), it is a regular Depends:, and > your wildcard solution will not work. > > Unless, that is, dpkg-gencontrol expands the wildcard appropriately at > build time - but I don't think it does. FWIW it does. -- .''`. : :' : “Fuck you sir, don’t be suprised when you die if `. `' you burn in Hell, because I am a solid Christian `-and I am praying for you.” -- Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1278086194.11866.5.ca...@meh
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
>> 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 non-free. To $whatever do with it. >> 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 anyone putting things in main to not >> discriminate against persons/groups/fields and then discriminate on our >> own. > I guess it's quite easy for to judge things like this using common > sense... Whose common sense? Ive heard that those radical islamistic people actually think it very common sense for their women to not have any rights, a position the common sense as usually taken in the western world doesnt follow. >> Doesnt matter. > Although you may be right from the what allows non-free point of view,.. > but in all doing respect,.. this is rather stupid I guess. > Next thing is that people "invent" licenses which force people to hate > Jews, or elect only Democrats, or do not use KDE... They are fine to do this (well, besides I think them idiots for writing new licenses). Its idiotic, yes, but thats something different. People are even fine to package that up for non-free. As long as Debian can distribute it. Whoever uses it has to check the license, and then either follow it or not use it. > Even if that fulfils non-free criteria... it should not go into Debian. My dislike of Flash, PHP, KDE, GNOME, cdbs is well known. All of those fulfil non-free (and contrib and main) criteria. I think they should not be in the archive. Sorry, no, they stay. -- bye, Joerg I'm kinky and perverse, but my illness is laziness -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y6dtubz9@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: Removal of not+kfreebsd and linux-gnu dependency, bugs already filled
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 16:01:01 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > This started as Kyle (Cc) filled #585767 because some packages failed to > build on powerpcspe (not official, in debian-ports atm). The gnu > triplet there is powerpc-linux-gnuspe so type-handling provides > not+linux-gnu. This is also the case for armel since its triplet ends > with gnueabi. Sounds like a bug in type-handling to me. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 *think* that's sarcasm, but not sure... -- Seek truth from facts. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c2e020d.5060...@cox.net
Removal of not+kfreebsd and linux-gnu dependency, bugs already filled
Hi, first of all, I'm really sorry for filling 23 bugs without discussing this here. This started as Kyle (Cc) filled #585767 because some packages failed to build on powerpcspe (not official, in debian-ports atm). The gnu triplet there is powerpc-linux-gnuspe so type-handling provides not+linux-gnu. This is also the case for armel since its triplet ends with gnueabi. So packages like gvfs which depend for instance on libudev-dev (>= 0.139) | not+linux-gnu are trigger by wanna-build even if libudev-dev (>= 0.139) is not available since not+linux-gnu is available. Replacing not+linux-gnu with not+linux would be one way to go. Since Debian-Policy 3.9.0 architecture wild cards are allowed so this dependency would become libudev-dev (>= 0.139) [linux-any] and the type-handling aliases (which are hack according to #585767) could go. Based on this and the fact that some packages are already using them I filled some bugs [0]. Most of the tools are fixed now. The buildd chain is fixed since acpid [1] is built and installed. apt has a fix in its experimental vcs branch to make apt-get build-dep work. pbuilder has a patch in bts. What I learned after filling the bug is that git-buildpackage + cowbuilder don't work (yet). [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=typehandling;users=debian-powerpc...@breakpoint.cc [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/acpid.html Sebastian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100702140101.gb16...@chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:12:55 +0430, Mohammad Ebrahim Mohammadi Panah > wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer >> 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 anyone putting things in main to > not discriminate against persons/groups/fields and then discriminate on our own. >>> 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? > I think this is not the question at all. I clearly agree with adding > packages related to religious stuff, and this application has a right to be > in Debian too. But there is this serious problem with the license: Relying > on "Islamic laws" is not acceptable. The license text is full of references > to prophets sayings and "permissive principles of Islam". I don't thing > this is compliant with the DFSG, cause it does not explain clear enough > what you can do with the software and even Muslims have do argue about it. > In my opinion relying on religious stuff in licenses should not be > permitted. If upstream chooses a BSD-style license etc. there should be no > problem to accept this upload. > I think the ftp-masters will do the right thing too, but I'm sure they need > to think a lot about it before they make a decision. > I said that saying assuming we're talking about including it in non-free. I completely agree it cannot be in main. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktiledqncwlzktwnnlmgna1p-iquise4liwjlt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Razer Mice
Dear reporter, initrd@comcast.net schrieb am 02.07.2010 08:35: > After digging for support for Razer Gaming Mice for the past year, I came > across a project that supports a number of Razer mice and and uses pyqt4 for > the interface. This is a great tool and as I have noticed not just the number > of Linux users growing but gamers whom use such mice, such as myself (I own 2; > Copperhead & Death Adder), I thought it might be a great addition to the > Debian repositories. Is there someone willing to take this on? Is this the > place to ask? If not then redirect me. If so and no-one is willing, would > someone be willing to point me in the direction of how to get sponsored? > I have 5 years of experience using Linux and am willing to learn. you either want to file an so called "Request For Packaging" (RFP) bug, in case you just want to ask for inclusion of the package into Debian. To do that, please run: reportbug wnpp and follow the instructions. In case you want to maintain the package, you want to file an "Intend To Package" (ITP) bug. The command is the same as above, just select ITP instead of RFP when prompted. Please make sure, there isn't already a bug for the package you wish to see enter Debian (reportbug should help you take care of that). Kind regards, Kai Wasserbäch P.S.: What do you mean by "support for Razer Gaming Mice"? Do you mean some configuration interface for mapping buttons or changing sensitivity? Or do you mean a kernel module needed to get them working? In the latter case you might want to talk to the Kernel maintainers before you file a bug. -- Kai Wasserbäch (Kai Wasserbaech) E-Mail: deb...@carbon-project.org Jabber (debianforum.de): Drizzt URL: http://wiki.debian.org/C%C3%B9ran GnuPG: 0xE1DE59D2 0600 96CE F3C8 E733 E5B6 1587 A309 D76C E1DE 59D2 (http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xE1DE59D2&fingerprint=on&hash=on&op=vindex) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 is rather stupid I guess. > Next thing is that people "invent" licenses which force people to hate > Jews, or elect only Democrats, or do not use KDE... There are laws against that. We don’t need any kind of additional rules for acceptance in non-free. > Even if that fulfils non-free criteria... it should not go into Debian. non-free is not Debian. -- .''`. : :' : “Fuck you sir, don’t be suprised when you die if `. `' you burn in Hell, because I am a solid Christian `-and I am praying for you.” -- Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1278072142.11866.3.ca...@meh
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:12:55 +0430, Mohammad Ebrahim Mohammadi Panah wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer > 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 anyone putting things in main to not >>> discriminate against persons/groups/fields and then discriminate on our >>> own. >> 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? I think this is not the question at all. I clearly agree with adding packages related to religious stuff, and this application has a right to be in Debian too. But there is this serious problem with the license: Relying on "Islamic laws" is not acceptable. The license text is full of references to prophets sayings and "permissive principles of Islam". I don't thing this is compliant with the DFSG, cause it does not explain clear enough what you can do with the software and even Muslims have do argue about it. In my opinion relying on religious stuff in licenses should not be permitted. If upstream chooses a BSD-style license etc. there should be no problem to accept this upload. I think the ftp-masters will do the right thing too, but I'm sure they need to think a lot about it before they make a decision. Just my 2 cents... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5cc095ac20e1063b53c972d4464ae...@mb8-2.1blu.de
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 Machiavellists who wrote the American constitution" or those who do not believe in "please[ing] Allah"... if I follow the preamble. Cheers, Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1278071668.6261.10.ca...@fermat.scientia.net
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer 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 anyone putting things in main to not >> discriminate against persons/groups/fields and then discriminate on our >> own. > 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? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimsydat7eu9nrnwl_sajzcz0vklew5gxblyx...@mail.gmail.com
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 signed message part.
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 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 anyone putting things in main to not > discriminate against persons/groups/fields and then discriminate on our > own. I guess it's quite easy for to judge things like this using common sense... > > 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 is rather stupid I guess. Next thing is that people "invent" licenses which force people to hate Jews, or elect only Democrats, or do not use KDE... Even if that fulfils non-free criteria... it should not go into Debian. Cheers, Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1278069908.5300.13.ca...@fermat.scientia.net
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 in it. Everybody can judge for his own what is evil and what is good. The fundamentalists surely believe that their war against the infidels is right,... some secret services surely believe that waterboarding is right. And there is no named authority which judges this (e.g. the pope decides or so). Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1278069679.5300.12.ca...@fermat.scientia.net
Re: Advanced Startup/Shutdown with Multilayered Block Devices and Related Issues
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 01:24 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > You're looking for tmpfs and pivot_root. The latter is a hack that's needed > only because of kernel threads, if you're the only process chroot() and > chdir() should be enough. Of course,.. I rather meant,.. whether there are chances that Debian will do this for shutdown (halt/reboot/kexec/etc). I mean it's quite a "big" change, isn't it? Cheers, Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1278069472.5300.8.ca...@fermat.scientia.net
Bug#587893: ITP: tdbc -- Tcl Database Connectivity (TDBC)
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Konstantin Khomoutov * Package name: tdbc Version : 1.0b14 Upstream Author : Kevin B. Kenny The Tcl Core Team * URL : http://tdbc.tcl.tk/ * License : (custom, BSD-like) Programming Lang: (C, Tcl) Description : Tcl Database Connectivity (TDBC) This package is a basis for common database access interface for Tcl scripts providing common API for different database drivers (backends). Drivers for various databases provided as separate packages, namely: * Sqlite v3: tcl-tdbc-sqlite3; * MySQL: tcl-tdbc-mysql; * PostgreSQL: tcl-tdbc-pgsql; * ODBC: tcl-tdbc-odbc. Temporary VCS URL is: http://git.debian.org/?p=users/khomoutov-guest/tcl-tdbc.git -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100702101838.20834.45620.report...@localhost
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 at all > by using non-free. > 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 ? Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c2d99bb.4080...@dogguy.org
Bug#587856: ITP: debian-gis -- Set of Blends metapackages for Debian GIS
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andreas Tille * Package name: debian-gis Version : 0.0.1 Upstream Author : Petter Reinholdtsen , Andreas Tille * URL : native package * License : GPL Description : Set of Blends metapackages for Debian GIS The source package will create a set of metapackages for the different tasks defined by the Debian GIS project to support people working with Geographical Information Systems finding their stuff easily in the pool of Debian packages. The metapackages should help the Debian GIS project to support their users better by simpler installation as well better documentation because the work of the project will be easily displayed by the Blends tools at http://blends.alioth.debian.org/gis/tasks/ The packaging of debian-gis is just prepared in the Blends SVN at svn://svn.debian.org/blends/projects/gis/trunk/ -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100702074154.28235.37551.report...@mail.an3as.eu
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 distribute it. >> A software license is not allowed to force other users to please any "god". > > Yes, we can very well distribute a software in non-free that requires > the user to do whatever funny thing the license author wants from him. > It is the users problem in non-free if they can follow that or > not. Debian does only require the distribution rights, and I do not see > how they are affected in such a thing. How much sense it makes and what > I personally think of license authors (hint: nothing good at all, DO NOT > WRITE ANY NEW LICENSE, DAMNIT), is something else. > Okay thanks for the correctur :) -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org Comment: Always if we think we are right, we were maybe wrong. */ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#587854: ITP: getdp-sparskit -- general environment for the treatment of discrete problems
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: trophime * Package name: getdp-sparskit Version : 2.0.0 Upstream Author : Christophe Geuzaine * URL : http://www.geuz.org/getdp * License : GPL-2 Programming Lang: C++ Description : general environment for the treatment of discrete problems GetDP is a general finite element solver using mixed elements to discretize de Rham-type complexes in one, two and three dimensions. The main feature of GetDP is the closeness between the input data defining discrete problems (written by the user in ASCII data files) and the symbolic mathematical expressions of these problems. This version is compiled with SPARSKIT to solve linear systems. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100702071018.4569.85777.report...@calcul8.lcmi.local
Re: "Waqf" General Public License in Debian?
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 meant for non-free, not main. > 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 separate "project" would be a better place. 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 anyone putting things in main to not discriminate against persons/groups/fields and then discriminate on our own. > 3) The license contains many places which can be considered > discriminatory, racist or fundamentalist. Whatever one may think about license authors[1], we have to look where it is targetted. In this case its for non-free. That doesnt require much besides "Debian can distribute it". [1] In my opinion ANYONE who writes a new license has to be shot. Those people are worse than politicians. > Apart from that... religious stuff shouldn't go into a license. No new one should be written anyways. The world has more than enough to cover every use case. > 4) The license is extremely anti-American, and I guess also > anti-European/anti-Western. Doesnt matter. -- bye, Joerg is there a tag for "won't be fixed until sarge+1"? depends whether the BTS is year 2037 compliant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87lj9uxt0v@gkar.ganneff.de
