On Sun, 3 May 2015 16:26:54 Marko Lindqvist wrote: > On 3 May 2015 at 14:40, Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@debian.org> wrote: > > 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. > > Whose Freedom you are talking about? Freedom from unnecessary censorship. > Sounds like you're saying that > "Upstream should be free to release anything via Debian." Not at all. > However, upstream has made it free software, which means that > "Downstream (including Debian) has freedom to change it." They would > have not chosen such a license if their intent was not to give that > freedom to Debian. Introducing unnecessary changes to content, if motivated merely by unhealthy desire to censor, would be a disservice to our users and disrespect to upstream. It is important to maintain good relationships with upstream -- believe it or not but staying it touch with upstream helps. Who would like to work with us if we start making changes to fit someone's _taste_? Is this what Debian is about? Is that really how you see maintainer's duties and responsibilities? Those who brought this issue should have open a bug upstream and stop wasting our time here. This is not a Debian issue to begin with. -- Regards, Dmitry Smirnov. --- Good luck happens when preparedness meets opportunity.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.