Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 04:43, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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).
> So if you think the package in question is actually illegal, you hire
> the lawyer and then come back and let us know.
We don't take that attitude to software licenses. Why should we take it to
other laws? If someone can provide evidence (which I don't think would be
very hard to get) that this is illegal in various countries, why is that
different from someone saying something is non-distributable in the US
because of patent issues?