Active Islamic Youth

Active Islamic Youth (Bosnian: Aktivna islamska omladina) was a small youth organization based in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was active in the Bosnian postwar period. According to some media reports, it was described as a front for the Saudi High Commission for Relief and the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.

AIO was the first publisher of the Islamic magazine Saff, with an estimated circulation of 9 running bottle holder,000.

The AIO was launched after the 1992-1995 Bosnian war, when a group of young Bosnian Muslims decided to form the organization to promote the Islamic teachings they learned from the Arab volunteers who fought on the Bosnian side during the war. The volunteers were also Islamic missionaries. They distributed Islamic literature. Some of the literature tend to designate dozens of habits of the Bosnian Muslims that had nothing to do with the Wahabi teachings and that had to be corrected. These Arab fighters and missionaries influenced some of the young Bosniaks who joined the Bosnian Mujahideen during the war. After the war, these young people went on to form AIO.

AIO’s mission is to awaken the religious feelings of Bosnian Muslims – who, the organization believes, have been deprived of the real Islam for too long, first by the Communist regime of the former Yugoslavia, and later by the traditional mainstream Bosnian Muslims. The AIO emphasises that it aspires to original Islamic teachings as preached by Mohammed, and that it does not accept any “novelties” in Islam. Members of the AIO are known for their atypical way of praying, and for their Middle-East-style clothes and long beards thermos dishwasher safe. The men do not shake hands with women, and the women wear headscarves in public.

People associated with AIO are reported to have behaved violently, including during demonstrations. Leaders of AIO are said to have made inflammatory statements in which they criticized Bosnian Muslims for accepting too many habits of their Christian neighbours sports socks wholesale. On 24 December 2002 a young Muslim fanatic, Muamer Topalovic, shot three members of a Croat returnee family in Konjic, 80 km south of Sarajevo. Topalovic, who confessed to the killing, said that he wanted to do something against Croats. He was subsequently arrested and sentenced to 35 years in prison. Police said that Topalovic told them during the investigation that he was a member of AIO. That was later proven false. AIO leaders, however, acknowledged the possibility that Topalovic might have attended some of the courses the group organized.

After 11 September 2001, Bosnian police have taken a keener interest in AIO’s activities. It became clear that some of the Arab teachers who had impressed AIO’s founders were potential threat. AIO premises were raided several times, and its finances were thoroughly audited. It has been established that AIO received donations in the past from large Saudi charities, such as the Al Haramain Foundation. In the fall of 2002, U.S. authorities declared Al Haramain a sponsor of terrorist networks and froze its assets in the United States and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Today, the number of people associated with AIO is shrinking. The organization is experiencing financial troubles, as many of its former donors have stopped sending money because of the bad reputation that AIO has acquired. It covers its expenses through internet clubs and from selling Islamic magazines and literature, but its future is uncertain.

Copyleft

Copyleft er en betegnelse for en række fri software- og open source-licenser for brug af ophavsretsbeskyttede værker som er karakteriseret ved et krav om at værker som er afledt af et andet værk med en sådan licens, udgives under samme licens hvis de frigives. Hvor ophavsretregler normalt bruges til at forhindre eller begrænse muligheden for lovligt at lave og distribuere kopier af et værk, er det omvendt copyleftlicensens formål at sikre at alle personer som modtager et copyleftet værk har ret til frit at bruge, ændre og videredistribuere det.

Prominente eksempler inkluderer GNU Public License (GPL) og Creative Commons’ “ShareAlike” (CC-BY-SA).

Kort fortalt går det ud på, at et værk (for eksempel et computerprogram) frit kan kopieres, ændres og distribueres – men de nye værker som fremkommer herved skal forblive under samme licens som originalen:

Hvis man er i besiddelse af et copyleft-program, har man fået retten til at bruge, ændre og kopiere programmet på visse betingelser (nemlig at man videregiver de samme rettigheder uindskrænket til alle modtagere) af ophavsrethaveren (dvs. den eller de personer som har lavet programmet). Det er frivilligt om man vil acceptere disse betingelser, og hvis man ikke vil eller kan overholde dem, må man godt at bruge programmet (eller indholdet), men man må ikke distribuere det. På det punkt adskiller copyleft-licenser sig fra andre licenstyper. Distribution er en handling hvormed du accepterer betingelserne i licensen. Dette kan måske synes mærkeligt ved første øjekast running bottle holder, men det er fordi alle betingelserne omhandler hvorledes du distribuerer materialet. Hvis du ikke vil acceptere betingelserne, så har du ikke tilladelse til at distribuere. Det betyder dog ikke at du må tage kildekoden under licensen og kopiere den!

I tilfældet et computerprogram under en copyleft licens, må du bruge programmet personligt og lave ændringer uden at binde dig til licensen. På dette tidspunkt er du udelukkende bundet af dit lands nationale copyright-lovgivning, og materielet under licensen (kildekoden) er ophavsretligbeskyttet, så du må ikke tage fra kildekoden (dvs. kopiere fra materielet under licensen.) Men ligeså snart du giver programmet til en anden, eller viser programmet offentlig frem, binder du dig til licensen, som pålægger dig at give alle de friheder du selv har fået videre under den samme licens (og en af de friheder er at du som modtager af et afledt værk (i modsætning til ikke-copyleft fri software) har ret til kildekoden.)

Denne typer licenser har også vundet indpas uden for software. Copyleftens karakter der giver dig frihed til frit at dele materiale under licensen, men ikke fornægte andre copyleftens friheder, har gjort at store kulturelle fælleder best fabric shaver, uden om de traditionelle kommercielle interesser, er sprunget op overalt på internet.

Historisk kan man finde copyleft helt tilbage til et lille BASIC-program i slutningen af 1970’erne skrevet af Dr. Wang. I programmet står: All Wrongs reserved og CopyLeft – som modsvar til det traditionelle: All Rights reserved og Copyright. Det første legale copyleft tilskrives Richard Stallman i forbindelse med hans GPL: GNU General Public License. Omkring 1985 fik han en ny sætning indarbejdet: Copyleft—all rights reversed, som stammer fra en kreativ fælle Don Hopkins.

Ikke blot inden for it-verdenen er fænomenet kendt – hvad angår åbent indhold (open content), skabes der noget inden for universiteterne og kunstens verden i form af Creative Commons. Her er der frit slag for billeder og musik mv. – professor Lawrence Lessig, der bl.a. har skrevet bogen: Free Culture, står et godt eksempel for problematikken.

Copyleft startede som noget, der kunne ligne en spøg og skæmt-seance, herunder det omvendte copyright-symbol (se figur). Internet og globalisering samt måske især en øget digitalisering i samfundet har startet en rivende udvikling inden for området, hvor grænser synes meget elastiske.

En del kunstnere har udnyttet Copyleft til distribution af materialer; en af de første var Brad Sucks

Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer har kaldt copyleft-konceptet og licenserne for virale idet han sammenligner dem med computervirus som spreder sig fra program til program. Fortalere af copyleft finder den sammenligning upassende.

Intern kritik indenfor fri software bevægelsen har været rettet mod GPL, der ikke tillader at et programmodul udgivet under GPL linkes med et program, der ikke er GPL-kompatibel. Problemet blev løst med LGPL, der er beregnet til disse situationer. Nogle programmer er udgivet under LGPL for at lette integrationen med andre systemer. Lettelsen drejer sig naturligvis om juridiske og ikke tekniske problemer.

Se også afsnittet Kritik af GFDL i artiklen GNU Free Documentation License.