Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Sunday 05 December 2004 08:25 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:21:04PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 05-Dec-04, 09:07 (CST), Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:45:56AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > > On 05-Dec-04, 04:55 (CST), James Foster <email@example.com>
> > > > > There's no excuse for censorship, ever.
> > > >
> > > > Okay everybody, repeat after me: Choosing not to distribute a given
> > > > package is NOT censorship.
> > >
> > > And telling somebody else that they can't distribute a given package
> > > IS censorship.
> > I haven't told anyone that they can't distribute it. We, Debian, can
> > choose not to distribute certain materials w/o it being censorship.
> You say it as if the whole project was in agreement about something.
> What is actually happening here is that one individual Debian
> developer is choosing to distribute a given package, and some other
> developers are trying to stop them. That's censorship. Even if they
> don't have the authority to do it (that just makes it ineffective
Actually, the developer is choosing to have Debian distribute a package, and
others are trying to stop Debian from distributing the package. No one (as
far as I know) has tried to stop the developer from distributing it from
his own webspace. So, in this case, assuming those opposed to Debian
distributing the package succeed in keeping it out of Debian, I don't think
it would be censorship.