On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 01:48:04AM -0500, Mohammad Derakhshani wrote:
I named this packaged based on another package of mine which was reviewed and accepted: <http://packages.debian.org/sid/zekr-quran-translations-en>Do you think the dfsg even in the accepted package zekr-quran-translations-en should be removed?
You only use "dfsg" in the version number of a package when you have repacked the original tarball to exclude materials that aren't in compliance with the DFSG. Since you obviously don't do that with non-free packages, there's no point in using the "dfsg" label.
I think that whenever you upload a new upstream version, you should remove the "dfsg" in the English translations package, yes. Don't re-upload just to remove the "dfsg".
I think this translation is good enough to be packaged for Debian. But because 1. issue of translating Quran is very disputable (In Islamic theology, perfectly translating Quran is considered impossible), and
I'm aware of this debate.
2. we are not sure enough that the current translation is exactly word by word matches the real translation done by the its translator, and 3. in zekr-quran-translations-en which was reviewed and accepted we used exactly the same disclaimer, in my humble opinion, I think it is better to not change the disclaimer.
Okay. I'm not at all picky. You're always free to ignore my suggestions; you're the maintainer, and I'm not.
P.S: If you can send me a link of howto discussing when a package should be called dfsg I will appreciate.
Included above. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only a typesetting engine: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
