Hi, Le 10/03/2014 21:12, Christoph Biedl a écrit : > Paul Tagliamonte wrote... > >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 08:31:24PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote: >>> Thibaut Paumard wrote... >>> >>>> IANAL, but this discussion has got me wondering were we should draw the >>>> line. Summary: in my opinion, if you intend on uploading a package which >>>> as fair chances of being classified as pornography *somewhere*, please >>>> don't. Argumentation follows (Nils, obviously I'm not meaning you by "you"): >>> >>> There was a discussion about "hotbabe" some years ago ... >> >> Be careful here; in most Jurisdictions child porn is treated very >> differently then normal porn (and rightly so). Agreed too. > Agreed. It was Thibaut who skipped the "child" word above and I > understood this was by intention. Perhaps he hat something different > in mind. Yes, it was intentional. The FTP masters are of course the ones to decide, but for the reasons I expressed later in my mail, I think even legal (in most countries) pornography would put the distribution in a difficult position. I acknowledge I have no idea in how many countries this particular package would be problematic once expunged from the child abuse graphic content. Kind regards, Thibaut.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature