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
>> 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
Reply to: