Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:23:21 -0600, Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> said:
> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:55, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:41:30 -0600, Joe Wreschnig
>> <piman@debian.org> said:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:42, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:01:08 -0600, Joe Wreschnig
>> >> <piman@debian.org> said:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 13:26, Eric Lavarde wrote:
>> >> >> Hi again,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> perhaps to bring down the conversation to something more
>> >> >> constructive, I think we should base decision to have
>> >> >> something or not in Debian:
>> >> >> 1. _NOT_ on personal belief (else we would probably end with
>> >> >> nothing).
>> >>
>> >> > Agreed.
>> >>
>> >> >> 2. _NOT_ on local laws (same comment).
>> >>
>> >> > Disagreed. If Debian is illegal to distribute to some
>> >> > important section of people in the world, because we include
>> >> > strange noncritical bits of software (hotbabe, the bible),
>> >> > then we have a real problem.
>> >>
>> >> In that portion of the world, sure. DSebian should continue to
>> >> practice freedom, and hope that those portions of the world get
>> >> better in time.
>>
>> > But by this logic, Debian should include every bit of software it
>> > can -- if those countries with pesky copyright laws won't let us
>> > distribute it there, then we hope that portion of the world gets
>> > better in time. Debian will continue to practice freedom.
>>
>> I think this is mostly correct.
> I think you misunderstood me. I meant *any and all programs*. After
> all, just because I can't legally exercise my freedoms to modify and
> distribute Microsoft Word here in the US, that shouldn't stop us
> from putting it in. It's just US copyright law being dumb.
As I have posted elsewhere, we only distribute things that are
legal to distribute, and then we only put DFSG free bits into
Debian. This package is not, as far as I can tell, either illegal to
distribute, or DFSG non-free.
> No, that doesn't work. There's some base level of stuff that's so
> unlawful we don't include it because it would cut off far too much
> of the userbase (or cause them to commit illegal acts). Enforced
> patents or situations where taking advantage of the freedoms
> outlined in the DFSG are two of them. Would you have Debian include
> child pornography if it was DFSG-free and someone wanted to maintain
> it, and it was legal in their country?
Arguing from a false premise, I've answered this above.
>> > We need to decide what statutes if any this program could violate
>> > if
>>
>> Cool, for all the jurisdiction, it'll probably take 10 lawyers for
>> every DD.
> Or we could use common sense.
My common sense tells me this package is not illegal to
distribute. In bad taste, but not illegal.
>> > distributed, and if the risks of alienating/denying that portion
>> > of users (in this case, people under 18/21 in various countries
>> > Debian is currently "ok" in) are worth it.
>>
>> And how do we find who we are alienating? Oh, I know: lets have a
>> GR.
> Don't put words in my mouth. I hate GRs.
That, unfortunately, may be the only recourse you have, if
this thing ever gets packaged.
manoj
--
Rule of the Great: When people you greatly admire appear to be
thinking deep thoughts, they probably are thinking about lunch.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: