[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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 Preining            preining@{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
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

Reply to: