On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:21:51AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > 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.
The DFSG doesn't mention religion (or other characteristics) at all, and rightly so. It's not for the project to discriminate on those grounds. I consider the (translated) license to be non-free on other grounds though; the first term is an obvious clause to pick on. > 2) How can the ftp-masters actually check whether this complies with the > DFSG. As far as I can see from the English translation, it is not > legally binding, and only the Arabic version is. > I guess none of our ftp-masters can read this, but even if, end-users > can not, so I guess people have not change in reading the license they > agree to. > I guess it's common sense that licenses should have a legally binding > version in English, which is kind of the international language. I guess (IANAL) that if it ever came to court, a sensible judge would take a translation from a trusted body in a language acceptable to the court. > 3) The license contains many places which can be considered > discriminatory, racist or fundamentalist. > Apart from that... religious stuff shouldn't go into a license. There's a lot of prose in the preamble, but it's mostly meaningless as far as the actual clauses go. -- Jonathan Wiltshire 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature