[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:28:23 -0600, John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> said: 

> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:30:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:34:06 -0600, John Goerzen
>> <jgoerzen@complete.org> said:
>> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:53:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:32:18 +0000, Will Newton
>> >> <will@misconception.org.uk> said: And we have no time to set up
>> >> i judgement over content -- there is a clear criteria for
>> >> inclusion of packages in Debian already.
>> > We have no need to.  We can collectively make reasonable
>> > decisions without having to set up a constitional authority to do
>> > so.
>> At this point, there is no mechanism by which we can try and
>> exclude packages out of debian which offend one (believe me on
>> this. vi would have been long gone otherwise). The only thing you
>> can do is either convince all the ftp-masters not to process it, or
>> get a

> Well that's a mechanism, the ftp masters frequently reject things.

	I would be surprised if ftp-masters let personal feeling about
 content interfere with their official duties -- I am not aware of
 this being the case.  I have heard cases where packages were refused
 on license grounds.

>> A lot of people find various things in debian objectionable. Others
>> do not.  And people finding this package illegal -- I'm sorry, I do
>> not see a clearcut argument that has so convinced me.  Indeed, I am
>> pretty sure that the images in this package are not illegal to
>> distribute, either on a website (I have seen several urls posted),
>> not as a package.  Feel free to proce (not just offer opinions that
>> I might be) wrong.

> But your argument was not limited to this particular package.  You
> also argued that we should not be limiting ourselves by things that
> some find objectionable, and extended the question into other nude
> images

	Right. I can imagine a set of background images based on oil
 paintings by old dutch masters, for example.

>  .  I am simply saying that these things can be illegal indeed.

	I have yet to be shown that.

> And if you think that we are safe in this instance because it looks
> fine to us, think again.  All it takes is one Southern prosecutor up
> for re-election to go after all the vile scum porn perpetrators on
> the Internet for us to be in what is sure to be a draining legal
> fight, even if we do wind up victorious.  That, or one offended
> parent.

	Seems like FUD to me. The prosecutor can go for sex.6, 

> Don't forget that people can sue us -- and force us to mount a
> costly defence -- even if the law is on our side.

	So even following the law may not help, and we should cover in
 fear cause people may sue us? Hell, Steve Ballmer says even using
 Linux can cause law suits -- so shall we close shop and fold out of
 the picture?

>> > If not, then your arguments about it being impossible to set a
>> > line are moot.
>> Rubbish. We set the line at illegal content, and by that criteria,
>> this is not illegal to distribute, and hence hot-babe is in.

> And yet, at the same time, were you not saying we couldn't do that
> because parochial laws differ?  In this instance, by whose laws are
> we determining that it's legal?

	Well, all kinds of international patent laws says using linux
 may be illegal. Are we to heed those people as well?

>> > remember that the organization that holds Debian's legal assets,
>> > SPI, is incorporated in the United States and is subjected to
>> > United States laws.
>> SPI does not govern Debian's behaviour.

> True enough, but the fact that it's incorporated in the United
> States makes it subject to US law.  That makes it easy to be sued,
> assets (read: machines) siezed, etc.

	This can happen merely cause they are using Linux, and
 infringing on hundereds pf patents. Your point?

>> Have you any proof the content is illegal to distribute?  Seems
>> like it has been up and around for a while.  Indeed, material even
>> worse than that is present on web sitres situated in the US. Seems
>> to me that this is mere FUD, trying to prevent expression of
>> artistry you are offended by.

> I am only objecting to it being included in Debian.

	Oh, sure. Object away. I object to vi too.

> It is extremely difficult to prove whether or not such a thing is
> illegal in the U.S. because: 1) laws differ based on location, and
> 2) it's a subjective question a judge has to answer, and 3) judges
> have different subjective taste.

	It is relatively easy to come to the conclusion that Linux
 itself violates at least some of the patents that think tank came up
 with a list of. So, in all probability, using Linux without licencing
 the patents is illegal too.

> When it comes down to it, though, neither of us are lawyers and thus
> are not really qualified to speak about it.

	Yup. The sky is falling.

> What I am saying is that there is no reason to take the risk.

>> > If you claim there is no line we can draw, then if we agree with
>> > you, there is no reason to keep child porn out of main either.
>> > Can we please use some common sense?
>> When you stop creating paper tigers to atrtack, we can talk,

> Perhaps you should stop asserting that it is impossible to reject
> these things then, or that it is impossible to set a line.

	It is quite possible for us to be as fascist as we wish in the
 future. But in the past, we have not excluded packages based on

"Engineering meets art in the parking lot and things explode." Garry
Peterson, about Survival Research Labs
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: