Christian Kastner <ckk@kvr.at> writes: > We agree on this: Debian's is a (very!) limited form of government. > However, I argue that censorship is within these limits. Debian doesn't even have enough legal existence to open a bank account, let alone apply even the lightest form of coercion to someone. How is that anything like a government? There is no territory or jurisdiction into which one can stumble by mistake and find oneself suddenly within the zone of influence of Debian. There's not even any way of persuading the people with the job titles in Debian to do anything if they happen to lose interest for some reason. The only real sanction that can be exercised in the name of the project is the removal of a previously granted privilege. Since those privileges are not rights, one cannot demand that they be maintained or even really expect them to be maintained, since they all depend upon donations in one way or another, where those donations are certainly not guaranteed to continue indefinitely. Alleging that removal of such privileges amounts to an infringement of rights[1] simply makes no sense. Cheers, Phil. [1] using the word "censorship" suggests a belief in a right to demand syndication for one's blog, which is not a right I'm aware of. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature