Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
Op vr, 10-12-2004 te 15:38 +0000, schreef Will Newton:
> On Friday 10 Dec 2004 15:24, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Which is a fine point of view if you are making a political point. But as
> > > far as I am aware we are trying to make an operating system.
> >
> > Sure. So we should not censor ourselves.
>
> I don't see how that follows from what I said.
Censoring is done by people who try to make a political point. Creating
an operating system involves throwing a pile of software together,
integrate it, remove any and all bugs you find, and release that. It
does not involve censoring.
In Debian's case, we censor only based on the question whether a package
is DFSG-free, nothing else. It would be wrong to act otherwise.
> Here's a couple of examples:
>
> We don't agree with censorship, so anything packageable goes in the
> distribution.
That is currently not the case. There are four requirements for a
package to be in main, and these are clearly spelled out in policy: they
need to be DFSG-free, they must not depend on software out of main, they
need to be not so buggy that we refuse to support them, and they need to
be policy-compliant.
> This means we have a number of worthless and crufty packages
> that no-one uses and our time to release is getting ever longer.
Packages that are worthless, crufty, unused, and unmaintained are
routinely being removed from the archive.
> We also end
> up with packages that offend many people and may even cause legal problems
> for our distributors.
Have you taken a look at what hot-babe actually looks like? I suspect
you haven't. I don't think it will "offend" anyone.
[...]
> Do you see why it seems like Debian is more of a political talking shop that a
> team trying to develop an operating system?
Debian has always been a political organization; if we weren't, we
wouldn't be anything called 'DFSG'.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Reply to: