Talk:Sharif Linux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You don't know anything about GPL. There is nothing about being available for download in GPL. Try to learn more! Hessam 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GPL violation
Sharif FarsiWeb is currently in violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). According to the terms of the GPL, a copy of any GNU/Linux distribution must be made freely available to anyone for download.[citation needed] However, Sharif FarsiWeb does not do this. Instead their FAQ makes the following claim:
- We do not provide Sharif Linux as an internet download, because of several reasons:
-
- We do not know if by making the Sharif Linux binaries downloadable outside Iran we may be breaking any laws of the countries (whose inhabitants will be able to download the binaries) or not. We cannot afford non-Iranian lawyers yet.
- We currently do not have the resources necessary for this, specially the bandwidth, which is costly.
- You are free to copy the Sharif Linux CDs, provided you follow the licenses included in the CDs and you do not break any law. But FarsiWeb takes no reponsibility for any legal action resulting from this. As far as we know, copying Sharif Linux CDs in Iran is legal, provided that you follow the licenses of the software included in the CDs.
Their FAQ also states:
- "You don't need to pay for Sharif Linux. You can get a copy of the CDs from a friend or a collegue, if he will give it to you for no money.
- "The two meanings of the English word "free" should not be confused. When someone says that GNU/Linux is free, it means thay you have some level of freedom in copying and modifying it. It doesn't mean that FarsiWeb may not sell the operating system, or that FarsiWeb may not charge for the services it provides to its customers. Many free software companies, including Red Hat sell GNU/Linux distributions like the Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
- "The Sharif Linux 2 Desktop Edition boxes come with technical support and an introduction and installation manual. If you don't want the manual and the technical support, you may get a copy from a friend. It is free software after all!
However, these justifications only further highlight the fact that Sharif Linux is in violation of the GPL. In such instances, the Free Software Foundation must be made aware of the violation so that legal action may be taken to correct the problem.
FarsiWeb lists the Iranian branch of Royal Dutch Shell as one of their clients, thus it is unusual for the company to claim that they are unable to afford bandwidth costs in order to provide a freely available copy of Sharif Linux for download. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khodavand (talk • contribs) 08:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
- It's an original research and I'll remove it soon. Talk page is not where you express your hate or advertise sth. Just I want to wait for your answer to {{fact}} on this talk page. Hessam 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. There is no hate here. But there is a double standard when Sharif Farsiweb, a government company, does not provide a free link to a download of the software. If this is not a violation of GPL as you say (can you show this to enlighten me?) then it is surely a violation of the spirit of the GPL, i.e. free exchange of information. Commercialism is not good! Khodavand 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- As Hessam said, there is absolutely nothing in the GPL that mandates internet downloadability [1]. People are free to distribute GPL software in whatever medium they chose, and even to ask money for it. The claim is simply wrong, for all I can see. And even if it was correct, it would still be Original Research. It would be different only if you could show us a reliable, independent source publicly criticising Sharif Linux for that reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well Hessam should not try to cover the fact that Sharif FarsiWeb is a regime company closely tied to the "mullahocracy". Finding third party sources about what Sharif is violating is difficult exactly because of this reason. I will have to get a copy of it from a friend at the university and upload it to the Internet myself and hope that one of these Linux journals investigates the issue. Khodavand 05:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just remember that WP:V is to be used with particular strictness when living people and potentially negative allegations about them are concerned. From the company's site, it is clear that the company has personal and organisational ties with the university, and there's also some information about who its shareholders and former sponsors are. We can present these things neutrally without giving inappropriate weight to it and without engaging in negative insinuations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well Hessam should not try to cover the fact that Sharif FarsiWeb is a regime company closely tied to the "mullahocracy". Finding third party sources about what Sharif is violating is difficult exactly because of this reason. I will have to get a copy of it from a friend at the university and upload it to the Internet myself and hope that one of these Linux journals investigates the issue. Khodavand 05:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- As Hessam said, there is absolutely nothing in the GPL that mandates internet downloadability [1]. People are free to distribute GPL software in whatever medium they chose, and even to ask money for it. The claim is simply wrong, for all I can see. And even if it was correct, it would still be Original Research. It would be different only if you could show us a reliable, independent source publicly criticising Sharif Linux for that reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Sharif FarsiWeb is not a governmental company
This is just to confirm that Sharif FarsiWeb has no official or unofficial ties to the Iranian government. All the shareholders of the company are real persons, and no legal entity holds any share in the company, let alone the Iranian government or any governmental company. I am saying this as the Deputy Chairman of the company. roozbeh 16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am saying this as the Deputy Chairman of the company. Exactly - see WP:COI. Show evidence. So far the FarsiWeb company information shows that this is a regime-connected company. Khodavand 12:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, see the previous discussion. Regime ties are clear. Khodavand 12:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- The existence of (past) personal ties with a research project at a university is hardly the same thing as "regime ties", let alone being "a company of the Islamic Republic of Iran" as the text now has it. While I agree that Roozbeh's personal statement cannot serve as a "reliable source" in itself, the burden of evidence is clearly on you, Khodavand, to provide evidence to the contrary. What it all boils down to is, basically, that we have no realiable sources at all about who is this company and who's behind it, because it hasn't been the object of any third-party public coverage. Only thing this page should talk about basically is their product. I'm going to propose a stubbed-back version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's so funny that you are trying to tie a private company, working in the field of software localization, to the regime! This is further than POV pushing. About Future Perfect at Sunrise's proposal, Have you seen this? In my opinion, it's possible to cite farsiweb.info as a reliable source in this article. Don't you think so? Hessam 13:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- The point is I see no reason why we should make the ownership of the company an issue at all in the article. Apparently, the suggestion of ties with the state can be understood as insinuating something disparaging; that's clearly the motive why Khodavand wants it included. But to the degree that there could be such an insinuation, the statement would constitute OR. It would be okay if the question had been an object of public debate somewhere. Has anybody publicly criticized FarsiWeb for being tied to the state? If not, we really have no business dealing with the question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've never ever heard about such criticism. But previous revision also had nothing about ownership or share holders of the company. Would you please explain more about what's wrong with that version? It also had some versioning information of the product sold to shell company. Hessam 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there'd been an edit conflict; I prepared my version on the basis of Khodavand's before you reverted to Roozbeh's, but then decided I'd put mine in as another suggestion anyway. If there's uncontroversial details I left out, feel free to put them in again. I was a bit concerned about something "weasely" about one phrase in Roozbeh's version, about "is claimed to be based on...". Who does the claiming, and if it's just a claim, who does the denying? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've never ever heard about such criticism. But previous revision also had nothing about ownership or share holders of the company. Would you please explain more about what's wrong with that version? It also had some versioning information of the product sold to shell company. Hessam 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- The point is I see no reason why we should make the ownership of the company an issue at all in the article. Apparently, the suggestion of ties with the state can be understood as insinuating something disparaging; that's clearly the motive why Khodavand wants it included. But to the degree that there could be such an insinuation, the statement would constitute OR. It would be okay if the question had been an object of public debate somewhere. Has anybody publicly criticized FarsiWeb for being tied to the state? If not, we really have no business dealing with the question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's so funny that you are trying to tie a private company, working in the field of software localization, to the regime! This is further than POV pushing. About Future Perfect at Sunrise's proposal, Have you seen this? In my opinion, it's possible to cite farsiweb.info as a reliable source in this article. Don't you think so? Hessam 13:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- The existence of (past) personal ties with a research project at a university is hardly the same thing as "regime ties", let alone being "a company of the Islamic Republic of Iran" as the text now has it. While I agree that Roozbeh's personal statement cannot serve as a "reliable source" in itself, the burden of evidence is clearly on you, Khodavand, to provide evidence to the contrary. What it all boils down to is, basically, that we have no realiable sources at all about who is this company and who's behind it, because it hasn't been the object of any third-party public coverage. Only thing this page should talk about basically is their product. I'm going to propose a stubbed-back version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You're right. Thank you for keeping an eye on this article. Hessam 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
