Re: licenses revisited

["Chahine M. Hamila" <HALCON11 at terra dot es>]

Mohammed Elzubeir a *crit :

> Salam,
>
> I changed the about.inc to be more broad in the kinds of licenses
> we accept (being open source, not strictly gpl). Also, it has come
> to my attention that we can NOT accept Haydar's license if it
> discriminates against .il or any other group:
>
> ---->http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html<---------
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

1) We are not opensource.org
2) We can call it opensource if we want, and let Eric Raymond call
opensource whatever he wants, we won't be the first ones to use a different
definition that his. In any case, whether you consider it to be opensource
or not, we still have the power to decide what we want for ourselves. I.e.
the last word of what we accept and what we don't is not up to anyone but
Arabeyes.
3) I am very strongly against refusing the the HPL because of the .il stuff.
If someday you have a license encouraging exports and imports to/from .il,
accept it if you so wish. Just don't refuse this one *because of the .il
stuff*. Last time I checked, I am part of Arabeyes, not Arafateyes. And if
you think I'm too fucking sensitive about this, go make a tour in the West
Bank and see how it is, go see how you'll be treated by our cousins at
entrance in case you want to visit Jerusalem, and check why your countries
are under murdering sanctions. It's politics, but it's politics that
influence our fucking daily lives, so I can't make abstraction of it and do
as if it didn't exist. I don't mean to be harsh to any of you in particular,
so don't take it personally folks.