On Sun, 3 May 2015 12:41:49 Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: > I think it is perfectly acceptable to remove content from packages, but > I also think it should be noted in the description of a package that it > is missing parts the upstream version includes. Will this be done here? You wrote a book so how would you like if your publisher removes content he did not like without your consent? Encouraging censorship is worse than sharing your narrow cultural vision in a public mail list. Debian is used in many countries with diverse cultures. Good luck trying to find common cultural denominator to please everybody and I doubt that in the end there will be those who would still want to play what's left after your editorial work. In my opinion those who think they can decide what to remove are not fit for editorial control because of bias and prejudice. In fact I don't trust anyone to censor anything. When such questions arise we may involve technical committee to let team of professionals experienced in resolving conflicts to collectively decide what is appropriate and what isn't. Freedom is about as little censorship as possible (except extreme cases). Freedom is what we should be protecting even if it leaves someone offended. That is the price and it is just not possible to please everybody with censorship. Those who got their scissors ready, whom you are trying to protect and from what? I am an adult and I don't need your protection and if you want to protect kids then you are just not eligible. Please don't try to help parents to do their job. I am a parent and I do not need your help protecting my kids from what you think they should not see. The best we can do is to apply content rating and mention it in the description (for parents who trust content rating). And we should tell all self-proclaimed censors where to go with their "good intentions". -- Best wishes, Dmitry Smirnov.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.