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 suuuuuure. "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
> I guess it's quite easy for to judge things like this using common
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
Sorry, no, they stay.
<liw> I'm kinky and perverse, but my illness is laziness