On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:00PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > censorship). > > > > > > Actually, the developer is choosing to have Debian distribute a package, and > > > others are trying to stop Debian from distributing the package. > > > > Word games. Censorship is when a citizen of one body chooses to have > > that body distribute something (by being a citizen and distributing > > it), and another citizen tries to stop them. > > Gah! Book publishers do not publish every manuscript that is sent > to them. Movie studios do not fund every screenplay sent to them. > Libraries, as has been mentioned before, don't buy every book. You seem to be suggesting that any case where an organisation doesn't publish something is not censorship. That's obviously wrong, because some of them *are* censorship. > Such choices are made *all the time*. It's the difference between > "editing" and "censoring". The difference being that editing is a choice made by the person doing the work, while censorship is a choice made by an otherwise unrelated person in the same organisation. Editing would be if the maintainer decided to remove the package. Censorship is when some other developer tries to force him. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature