On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 19:06:33 CET Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the means > for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost. Debian is > not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable > or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose the burden of > translation, maintenance and policing of content. My problem with this all is that it was removed NOT because it violates the DFSG or that it was (properly) considered illegal. Those are excellent reasons to remove it. It was removed because someone found its contents objectionable. Thereby you make the criteria subjective. To be consistent you'd have to remove ALL packages/contents which someone could possibly find objectionable. /me wonders whether he should grab popcorn or run Here's an example: I find stoning, crucifixion and keeping people as slaves rather objectionable. So let's get rid of all Bible related packages? Keep the package, but make the content downloadable from 'some' site? Another: I find ML* the tool to single out (and normally 'punish' in some way) anyone who falls out of the statistical norm. So it reduces people to numbers and anyone who falls out of that statistical norm, is an anomaly and/or and outcast. If that's a value that Debian wants to promote, I'm out. And to be consistent, you'd then have to scan ALL the content, including all the source code for phrases/expressions that someone may find objectionable. How about projects who use 'master' as the name of their main development branch? Get rid of that too? Good luck getting a new Stable release out within the next 10 years. My main objections are thus: - It's subjective. And (therefor) a slippery slope. - If you do it, you have to do it across the board. Consistently. You may find the fortunes-mod package distasteful, but if you like it or not, it is representative of that time. So from a historical perspective, that has value. Just as 'Mein Kampf' has value from that perspective. But it being illegal in some jurisdictions could prevent it from entering the archive, which is an excellent and objective reason. Also, you/people have the option/freedom to NOT install the package. Name it 'fortunes-offensive' so no one installs it 'by accident'. My 0.02 *) It is irrelevant if my understanding of ML is incorrect. The criteria for inclusion in the archive has become subjective now.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.