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 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
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
Reply to: