Hi, >* Package name : zekr-quran-translations-ur > > Version : 1.1.dfsg > > Upstream Author : Mohsen Saboorian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >* URL : http://siahe.com/zekr/resources.html > >* License : Only free for non-commercial purposes > > This is not in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, so > you'll have to upload this to non-free (in which case there's no point > labeling the version with "dfsg"). But see below.
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? > Urdu - Pakistan Urdu. Authors: > > - Maulana Shah Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (kanzul_iman.zip). > > According to Wikipedia, the translator died in 1921, which means that > his translation occurred prior to 1923. In this case, the translation > is in the public domain in the United States, so the license above is > incorrect. That's right, I made a mistake. Thank you, I will change it to the Public Domain. > > There is no authenticity or correctness warranty for these > > translations. For more information please read the provided > > /usr/share/doc/zekr-quran-translations-ur/README.txt file. > > Disclaimers are most appropriate in the copyright file, not in the > package description. The package description should provide only enough > information for one to decide whether or not to install the package. If > the correctness of the translation is so doubtful as to be useless, then > perhaps the translation should not be packaged at all. 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 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. P.S: If you can send me a link of howto discussing when a package should be called dfsg I will appreciate. Regards, Mohammad
