Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 08:24:10PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:12:16PM -0500, mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 04:41:34PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > > If you do that then you are catering to the lowest common denominator -- the
> > > Lazarus Longs of the world, and not to the intelligent users who we want to
> > > have using our distro.
> >
> > Heh, everytime I see "Lazarus Long" I cannot help thinking of the Robert
> > Heinlein character. I'm sure he wouldn't approve of any censorware;
> > it would catch all of his books ;)
> > I wonder if it's really this guy's name.
> >
> > Nonetheless, last time I checked, Debian does not discriminate based on
> > our users' intelligence. If users want this software, then it is our duty
> > to cater to this. And if a developer wants to write the software, and
> > support it, then why stop him or her? We're volunteers after all.
>
> Besides "Lazarus Long", I haven't seen any users requesting this, only one
> megalomaniacal developer.
>
> As far as "why stop...", I'm not going to recap the entire thread for you,
> go back and read it if you want to know why. Start with the braindead
> proposal that would force participation from every member who didn't want his
> packages on some sort of blacklist, up to and including the DPL.
>
And how about the proposals which could've been implemented by one person,
or group, without any participation by parties who do not wish it? Ones
that resemble more of a personal filter than some kind of distribution-wide
system? Surely those have some merit to them? Perhaps you should
consult the article which started this sub-thread: [[🔎] 20020317151106.H20513@emu]
--
; Matthew Danish <mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
Reply to: