On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:01:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 02:51 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 09:23:43PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:51:55PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote: > > > > I'm not sure, how »pornography« is defined in the US and I really didn't > > > > intend to join your nice discussion, but could you please keep in mind, > > > > that it just show rough pixely pictures of a drawn woman? > > > > > > The problem with pornography in the US is that it isn't defined. It's > > > officially "I'll know it when I see it." Tread carefully. > > > > > > - David Nusinow > > > > > There is a case being defended by the EFF about a web site > > featuring a professional fotographer who takes erotic photos. The test > > is 'local community standards'. There are none for the i-net. And > > anywheres cd are distrubued, each community has their own local > > standards. SO how can the cd pass every community tests if we dont have > > access to all those laws/standards/communities. > Easy. Go for the "lowest common denominator" (which isn't that > low) on Disk 1. Put these on Disk [2-7], and, of course, on > the mirrors: > bible-kjv > bible-kjv-text > bibletime > bibletime-i18n > diatheke > gnomesword > libsword4 > perspic-texts > sword-comm-mhcc > sword-comm-pers > sword-dict-naves > sword-text-web > verse > fortunes-off > fortunes-es-off > fortunes-it-off > anarchism > hot-babe (when it's packaged) > pornview > I'm sure there are other similar packages. > Then, Disk 1 (which is very full-featured, after all) can be > passed out where ever and to who ever, without any fear of > possible problems. Hard-coding a list of "unacceptable" packages into the CD building scripts is a waste of time, because the location of a package on a CD set is primarily determined by its importance to the system and by its popularity. Most of these packages are in danger of ending up on the first CD any time soon -- and, if they were, why should we be overriding the overwhelming preferences expressed by our users just to pander to the childish sensibilities of people who *aren't* our users? Of the packages in this list, two of them actually *are* on disk 1: fortunes-es-off and fortunes-it-off. I see no reason to consider moving them until someone in a country where the lawyers speak those languages registers a complaint. For that matter, it's doubtful that fortunes-off (on CD 3) is illegal anywhere, even in the worst anti-intellectual cesspools of the American South, in spite of its humorous content. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature