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

Re: FYI: debian-legal is discussing the inclusion in the Debian archive of "erotic" interactive fiction depicting the sexual abuse of children

2014-03-14 11:30 GMT+01:00 Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org>:
> (If replying to me via debian-women or debian-legal, please cc me as
> I'm not subscribed to those lists.)
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Miriam Ruiz <miriam@debian.org> wrote:
>> 3) Up to now, there hasn't been an actual proposal of package to even
>> discuss, so the whole debate is abstract and I don't think anyone can
>> say anything concrete about something that is not even tangible. I
>> repeat: No one has started packagin anything, as far as I know, no one
>> has tried to upload anything, no one has made anything apart of
>> talking. At least that is my current understanding of the situation.
> Nils Dagsson Moskopp has already proposed an outline for a set of
> packages for Unteralterbach [1]; presumably that means he's serious
> about packaging this for Debian. In addition to that, Bas Wijnen has
> already offered to sponsor this package [2], which alarms me even
> more. So yes, there is an element of concrete-ness to this debate, and
> it's why I've started to actively voice my displeasure about the
> entire situation on debian-devel-games (a few days ago I assumed that
> this was just an attempt at trolling and promptly ignored it; it looks
> like I was wrong).

Let me explain what I mean with different words then: FTP Masters -as
far as I know- generally decide whether to accept or not a package by
its actual contents. Up to now, no one has developed any concrete
package that anyone could examine, and thus, the whole debate is
entirely theoretical and abstract. At the moment there is not a
concrete package to be accepted or rejected. There is undoubtable the
possibility that there is a concrete package in the future. I guess
that, depending on what FTP Masters decide, and what might be inside
that particular theoretical package, a decision could be made. For
example. it wouldn't be the same to try to make a package with just
the backgrounds of the game, even with their origin, than one that
contained the sexual images or dialogs. At some point, the details of
concrete proposal -if there ever is one- might matter a lot.

> Due to the above, I'm going to be watching the progress of
> Unteralterbach's packaging very closely in the coming months, as well
> as opposing this every step of the way. If this actually makes it into
> the NEW queue, I have no hesitation on raising this issue again on
> -devel and -project, and/or all other steps available to me as a DD to
> oppose this (e.g. on the remote chance that this actually passes
> through the NEW queue, I'll forward this issue to the tech-ctte, and
> sponsor a GR to get Unteralterbach removed from the archive if need
> be).

You have every right to do so, of course. I suspect that you're not
the only one in the project who has that position.

I would suggest to wait for what the FTP Masters say before making too
much noise or starting anything, as one of the things I would like to
prevent is to attract external groups that try to cconvert Debian into
their particular field battle between freedom of expression and the
rest of the human rights. That's just my personal opinion, and of
course you're entirely free to do whatever you feel more convenient,
but I'd suggest to at least wait for whatever the FTP Masters have to
say before starting a GR or getting more people involved.


Reply to: