Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 02:26:46PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 04:37, Adam McKenna wrote:
> >
> > You can say whatever you want to say, but don't expect Debian to be your
> > pulpit. Debian is a *LINUX DISTRIBUTION*, not a vehicle for any person or
> > group of persons to spread their opinions on what might be offensive to them
> > or to some other person or group. If you want to distribute that type of
> > information, you are more than welcome to use your own website, disk space
> > and bandwidth to do it.
> >
> > What you are proposing will waste the time of volunteers, and that is
> > unacceptable. A volunteer should spend his time maintaining his packages and
> > fixing bugs, not censoring upstream or responding to accusations of
> > "objectionable material", lest his packages fall into some sort of blacklist
> > maintained by christian-coalition types.
>
> Censoring upstream already happens. Responding to accusations of
> objectionable material already happens. Or haven't you been paying
> attention?
Yes, and the fact that I've only heard about it *once* in the several years
I've been reading this list, which makes me think that the status quo is
working fine.
Maybe the reason we haven't gotten a release out in 2 years is because there
are more policy freaks who are just interested in making volunteers'
lives harder than people actually interested in putting out a quality
software distribution.
> Had you read the proposal, you'd know that I'm trying to reduce the
> amount of censorship going on.
Yeah, through some bullshit "voting system" which will waste everyone's
(including the DPL's, if I understood you correctly) time. What a joke.
> > The bottom line is that if you or anyone else tries to put some sort of
> > censorware into Debian that is at all subjective, I will make sure that all
> > of my packages conflict with it, and I hope that others do the same.
>
> Hmm. Censorship for the sake of freedom of expression. I see.
Yeah, you already tried this argument. Sorry, but it doesn't hold water.
Your proposal is being rejected because of its lack of technical merit, not
because of anything you have to say. If you had actually put some time and
thought into your proposal before spewing it out on the list then maybe it
would have been worthwhile, but in your rush to censor you came up with
something brilliantly stupid.
> It would seem that at least some people in the project only believe in
> freedom of *popular* speech. Hopefully, that's a minority.
If you had made a proposal which was technical and objective, I would have no
problem with it. But it doesn't seem like you're interested in doing that,
(or maybe you just don't have a clue how it could be done).
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: