Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of "erotic" interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children
To save people wasting time on this
Debian is a volunteer effort
Each DD can contribute what they want
On the inclusion of packages like this, I suspect some DDs would find
the only thing left to contribute is their resignations.
Many people wouldn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. The
consequences of even showing sympathy for this type of package could
well have personal consequences for some people well into the future,
here is a typical example:
On 11/03/14 21:56, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 11/03/2014, Thibaut Paumard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Le 11/03/2014 20:10, Sam Kuper a écrit :
>>> My point was that if legal (in some jurisdictions) and literary
>>> discussions of abuse are completely excluded from Debian, then an act
>>> of censorship has been performed, which may itself be viewed as a real
>>> - though different - harm.
>> Deciding to not include a copy of some "literary discussion" in a
>> GNU/Linux distribution is by no means censorship. Please keep in mind
>> what the Debian project is about.
> About this, I agree with you.
> That's because there's a big difference between:
> (A) 'Deciding to not include a copy of some "literary discussion" in a
> GNU/Linux distribution' (this can be fair enough, as I said earlier);
> (b) deciding 'legal and literary discussions of abuse are completely
> excluded from Debian' (which would prevent Debian from ever
> distributing some valued works of the Western cultural canon, not on
> the basis of their being software or not, but on the basis of their
> literary content - a form of censorship).
> Like you, I'm in favour (A), applied sensibly; and I'm not in favour of (B).
> I responded to Joseph Neal's earlier email to the list because he's
> apparently of the opposite opinion: in favour of (B) or something like
> it; and by implication possibly opposed to (A).