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

Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor

Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:

> Rich Walker <rw@shadow.org.uk> writes:
>> Though you could try the following set of criteria:

[I added these back in for the sake of clarity]

>>1. Are there already similar packages in Debian? NO - okay, add.
>>2. Does it offer significant *technical* advantages over those packages?
>>   YES - okay, add.
>>3. Are any of those other similar packages poorly maintained? YES -
>>   don't add another until the others are cleaned up or removed - so
>>   don't add
>>4. Hairsplitting time - is there likelihood that adding it will cause
>>   grave distress to some proportion of the target market? NO - don't
>>   add.
>>Default: then add it.
> We could have all kinds of criteria.  The ones you propose are not, in
> fact, our criteria.  Our criteria are something like:
> 1. Does the license meet the DFSG?
> 2. Is there a Debian maintainer willing to maintain or sponsor the
>    package?

These are givens. I know this. It can't move from valid-ITP to package
without this.

> Now, you might want a different set of criteria, in which case, please
> suggest them in the proper forum, which is not here.

Actually, I don't want a different set of criteria. As a user, I am
concerned that Debian is in danger of having a thousand "CPU
monitors"[1] all with RC bugs. A process for restricting addition of
semi-duplicate packages might reduce workloads all round, and improve
quality of installed packages.

> My concern is that Saudi Arabia and China don't get to tell us what
> our criteria are, and I would oppose any criterion that amounts to
> "give China a veto".  Your proposal allows China a veto in some cases,
> and this makes it unreasonable to me.

Not quite. I simply suggest that *in the absence of any technical reason
why*, and *in the presence of a social reason why not*, it would be
polite to adopt "why not". 

That social reason might be "I can get tortured for possessing this" and
it might be "pornview is tacky as a package name - come[2] up with a
better one" or just "I believe this license isn't DFSG-free".

Of course, the fact that the package under discussion can make
possession of a Debian CD illegal in certain countries[3] trumps either
of our arguments.

> It is outrageous to think that China's or Saudia Arabia's censorship
> regimes should somehow influence our decision making in the slightest.

I believe the correct flame-inducing argument at this point is "tell
that to the first person tortured or executed for possessing a Debian CD
with hot-babe on it *who was not aware it was there*".

Testimony elsewhere in this thread suggests that *possession* in those
countries is a capital crime, with or without knowledge.

This would seem to make adding this package a breach of the Social
Contract, clause 4. Getting your users executed un-necessarily is, it's
true, a very idealist thing to do, but I can't see everyone signing up
to it.

cheers, Rich.

[1]  Or any other common package type. Editors. MP3 players. Playlist
     managers. RSS feed agglomeraters. Xbiff clones. 

[2]  For my English readers - I did that on purpose

[3]  Non-US exists because export of strong crypto from the US is an
     illegal act in the US. Hence, Debian has already accepted that
     local laws trump idealism.

rich walker         |  Shadow Robot Company | rw@shadow.org.uk
technical director     251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?           London  N1 1LX       | +UK 20 7700 2487

Reply to: