Re: Please advise regarding DFSG compliance of WPL-2
أحمد المحمودي <aelmahmoudy@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Debian contains some packages licensed under Waqf Public License in
> non-free section. Most of the packages are switching to WPL-2 which I
> think is DFSG compliant, so I am seeking your advice.
To clarify, othman is one such package. The previous discussion on the
Waqf Public license happened on debian-devel
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/07/msg00013.html
There was some talk about all of the religious elements to the license.
I would have preferred it if WPL-2 had clearly separated the religious
preamble from the terms and conditions, but we get what we get. There
is also the problem that the authoritative text is in Arabic. CeCILL-2,
for example, considers both the French and English versions as
authentic. I do not know whether the ftpmasters will be comfortable
with this translation or not.
In any event, I think the main problem with WPL-1 was that it included
restrictions on use. Essentially, it was a "do good, not evil" kind of
license. This one looks better in that regard. The important section
> Second - Usage :
>
> The user is entitled to use the work for any purpose and the holder
> advises not to use the work in harming others or in violation of the
> permissive principles of Islam 5), and the holder is not responsible
> for the user's violations of Islamic law or abuse of others in the use
> of work.
merely exhorts people to use it for good, but does not require it.
However, this part
>
> Third - Coverage:
>
> Waqf license can cover the published works with other licenses that do
> not conflict with it. Also Waqf can cover the parts that complement
> the work of other licenses, or the works that have been exonerated by
> domestic laws because of the expiry of their period. Waqf does not
> cover works which are harmful or most likely to be harmful.
is more troublesome. If I use this software for weapons, it sounds like
I can not distribute modified versions?
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Reply to: