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

Re: Debian's status as a legal entity and how it could effect a potential defense.

Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> writes:

> What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who believe
> that questionable content is desirable in the distribution, but they
> refuse to support themselves by doing the legal homework to support
> the content they desire. The entire project is burdened by it, and as
> one of the directors I am expected to clean up after them.

I don't think they said it was desirable.  Indeed, the only person I
have heard say it was is the ITP-filer, and only by implication.
Maybe I missed one or two though.

Still, you seem to be wanting to make up procedure on the fly.  You
don't get to do that.  We do not have a requirement that the inclusion
of "questionable content" requires an ITP-er to do some "legal
homework" before they can package something.  

I would not package the item in question, because it is offensive to
some people that I care about, and that's enough for me.  But I do not
seek to impose this judgment on other Debian developers, though if
someone asked me about hot-babe, "do you think I should package this",
I would suggest they refrain from doing so.

If you want a new procedure to be put into place, you are certainly
within your rights to suggest one, but this is the wrong place to do
it.  We have debian-project set up for just this sort of thing.

What matters to *me* is not hot-babe, and not even censorship, but
your attempt to invent a new process out of whole cloth, impose it by
fiat, and then cry foul that people aren't doing your will.

We have a procedure.  If you are not willing to follow that procedure,
then step aside.  If you are willing to abide by it, but wish to
suggest changes, make your suggestions in the proper forum.  But you
do not get to invent a new procedure (such as the one quoted above)
and then complain that people are not following the one you have

We have a procedure for adding packages to the archive, and it does
not require getting legal advice about "questionable content".

Reply to: