Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 unfounded as
astrology, the creation of the world 4000 years ago, the believe that
only 144000 can enter into heaven, that there actually was a
parthenogenesis about 2000 years ago, that some strange book was
dictated by some god word-for-word, ... (did I forgot one religion or
sect of the bigger ones?)
Please if you are a pro-religious fanatic, so it be, but don't start
mixing discussions about universal human rights, or politics, or
juridical matters, with religion, or I will call for an ostracism
on your matter!
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningprein...@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
WORMELOW TUMP (n.)
Any seventeen-year-old who doesn't know about anything at all in the
world other than bicycle gears.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
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/20100704115421.gj32...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 has become, or maybe not) Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND pgpEqvMX5Xn12.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 arguments, but the rubbish you wrote is as much as unfounded as astrology, the creation of the world 4000 years ago, the believe that only 144000 can enter into heaven, that there actually was a parthenogenesis about 2000 years ago, that some strange book was dictated by some god word-for-word, ... (did I forgot one religion or sect of the bigger ones?) Please if you are a pro-religious fanatic, so it be, but don't start mixing discussions about universal human rights, or politics, or juridical matters, with religion, or I will call for an ostracism on your matter! Go for it. I'm against censorship based on ones personal beliefs. Don't confuse what I consider it acceptable to believe with my actual opinions. The message I replied to was clearly an il-informed anti-religious screed. I gather you are in favor of this view. You're entitled to your opinions, but not to insist everyone in the project must share them. For myself, I'd like to encourage you to take a step back and work on being more comfortable with people whose opinions are not exactly like yours. If you don't like religious software, ignore it. 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/55bf3eb1-5a6f-4a65-a2f4-1aa9401d3...@email.android.com
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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. -- bye, Joerg (23:02) liw I should take a photograph of my stapler, the maker of which is RAPESCO -- 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/87pqz6xtep@gkar.ganneff.de
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 lamont is there a tag for won't be fixed until sarge+1? sam 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
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
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
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: 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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?
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, 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 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: 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
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 liw 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: 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: 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 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
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?
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 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
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 post it to d...@l.d.o at the current time.. This may sound anti-Islamic, but it is not. In my opinion, we should just keep Debian clean of any religious stuff, or software related to similar problematic areas, especially if they have such a questionable license. I don't see any problem with it (okay there are people who think it may be a problem etc etc etc..). 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? -- /* 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
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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, that it will be rejected. The software is meant for non-free. Why it should be rejected? Even non-free stuff has to pass NEW for the first upload… -- 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/4c2d190d.4080...@dogguy.org
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 separate project would be a better place. The DFSG doesn't mention religion (or other characteristics) at all, and rightly so. It's not for the project to discriminate on those grounds. I consider the (translated) license to be non-free on other grounds though; the first term is an obvious clause to pick on. 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 can read this, but even if, end-users can not, so I guess people have not change in reading the license they agree to. I guess it's common sense that licenses should have a legally binding version in English, which is kind of the international language. I guess (IANAL) that if it ever came to court, a sensible judge would take a translation from a trusted body in a language acceptable to the court. 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. There's a lot of prose in the preamble, but it's mostly meaningless as far as the actual clauses go. -- Jonathan Wiltshire 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 decides when something is starting to discriminate someone? I mean for all technical or scientific stuff that should be clear... Nevertheless,... I see some potential of problems here... And IMHO, even just sponsoring a package with _such_ a license, is well... no idea how to express this diplomatic ^^ 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/1278024281.5640.39.ca...@fermat.scientia.net
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 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. # The user may use the work for any good purpose and he may not use it to harm # others or violate the permissive principles of Islam 7). Notice that any # work that is most likely harmful can't be put under Waqf in the first place So how am I supposed to know the permissive principles of Islam? Does such a thing really exist? I wouldn't be surprised to find that if you randomly selected a dozen Muslims you would find little agreement on what this is. We can't have fuzzy licenses. I don't inherently disagree with religiously inspired lincenses, but such a license should have a short clear list of what it prohibits. Also as we don't discriminate against fields of endeavor the good purpose part wouldn't be acceptable even if it could be clearly defined and agreed. If Stormfront, Al Quaeda, or Right to Life want to use Debian then as a matter of principle we should let them do so - but of course the members of such organisations think that they have a good purpose so it probably doesn't matter much. -- russ...@coker.com.au http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog -- 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/201007020845.45595.russ...@coker.com.au
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 can read this, but even if, end-users can not, so I guess people have not change in reading the license they agree to. I guess it's common sense that licenses should have a legally binding version in English, which is kind of the international language. 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 acceptable. Whether the ftpmasters are comfortable with relying on an unofficial translation is entirely up to them. 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. In general, I tend to agree that religion and law should be separate (and licenses are, by their nature, legal documents). However, I think the major issue of the license is unrelated to religion. It contains restrictions on use, which by their nature are non-free. Furthermore, such restrictions are unenforcable under US copyright law, since first, the actual use of a program is explicitly permitted by law and second, use is not an exclusive right reserved to the copyright holder. Copyright law may differ in other countries. IANAL; IANADD. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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. http://www.ojuba.org/wiki/waqf/license 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. I think we all agree with this point, so please don't start a religious discussion now on this list.. Also as we don't discriminate against fields of endeavor the good purpose part wouldn't be acceptable even if it could be clearly defined and agreed. If Stormfront, Al Quaeda, or Right to Life want to use Debian then as a matter of principle we should let them do so - but of course the members of such organisations think that they have a good purpose so it probably doesn't matter much. ACK. -- /* 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
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 user may use the work for any good purpose and he may not use it to harm others or violate the permissive principles of Islam is totally problematic. Who defines what good purpose is? And what are the permissive principles of Islam? Is it defined by Sharia or Fatwas? Can someone come along and say e.g. people from Israel have never good purpose and are automatically excluded? 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/1278024839.5640.49.ca...@fermat.scientia.net
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 acceptable. I'd say that's ok, but this is obviously a new and totally different license from anything we commonly have. Furthermore, such restrictions are unenforcable under US copyright law But Debian is not (only) under US law. 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/1278025010.5640.51.ca...@fermat.scientia.net
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 besides being silly and non-free, restrictions on use are completely ineffective in certain localities. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 (much has been said already and I agree with most of
it):
The bug report contains also an email from upstream and license developer,
and I don't consider his standpoint and way of communicating very
inviting to package or have anything related to this in Debian.
There he also seems to specify what is permitted by the license
(but the quoting is quite bad, so I am not sure):
(Adding some in the hope that they are right)
* How Waqf passes “The freedom to run the program, for any purpose” in
FSF's definition of Free Software while “Waqf” ?
o later it says “to help your neighbor” not to kill him! having a
license from the author does not make illegal things legal.
If we give the freedom to the users to use the program in whatever way,
and that is DFSG, then we cannot rely on *Islamic* law (and for this
matter any other *religious* law) to define what is legal/illegal.
I think neither the packager nor upstream sees the actual problem, the
mixture of religious and political/jurisdiction matters. Fortunately
this has been separated many many years ago in the west (with
traces remaining - many countries, mine for example, has a Concordat
between the catholic church and the state, but that a meager remains).
In sincerely oppose any import of religious motivated jurisdiction,
and for that matter license is a case of it, into Debian. Please be
reminded that I do *NOT* oppose including religious related software
or text in Debian, if the licensing grounds are free of religious
rubbish (from whatever religion I don't care).
As an example: What about a license for a Bible Browser that prohibits
the usage to re-married people, or those that had pre-marriage
intercourse, as it is a sin, thus illegal in catholic jurisdiction.
Everyone would cry out and ROFL, so why don't we do that on other terms.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningprein...@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
THURNBY (n.)
A rucked-up edge of carpet or linoleum which everyone says someone
will trip over and break a leg unless it gets fixed. After a year or
two someone trips over it and breaks a leg.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
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/20100702002035.gb29...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: Waqf General Public License in Debian?
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 ftp-masters will do the right thing 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. DFSG #6 would not allow such a use restriction in a package license, why would it be different for the project as a whole? ... I think the topic of the specific license has been sufficiently explored. This may sound anti-Islamic, but it is not. In my opinion, we should just keep Debian clean of any religious stuff, or software related to similar problematic areas, especially if they have such a questionable license. What do others think? It doesn't sound anti-Islamic to me. It sounds more generally anti-religious. There have been religious packages in Debian for over a decade and the distribution seems to have survived the experience. 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/bfc0731c-e371-4ded-9362-74ec13f57...@email.android.com
