Re: "purity" package

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>]

Hi,

	Will this debate never die? 

>>"John" == John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:

>> Furthermore, I have an EXTREMELY STRONG objection to the suggestion
>> that these files should be censored because some people find them
>> offensive.  I would have thought Americans net users particularly
>> would have learned this lesson by now.

John> You're not looking at it from the same angle as others,
John> apparently. First: there is no "freedom of speech" issue.  That
John> applies to governments, etc.  This is no different than an
John> editor of a newpaper choosing to omit a certain story but
John> include a different one.  There are many such examples of
John> "censorship" that really aren't.

	OK, so there is no *legal* freedom of speech issue. But when
 we start selecting on content, when we say that packages have to meet
 criteria other than the DFSG, that they have to meet approval, it
 *is* a freedom of speech issue (though not legally). 

John> However, what purpose do they have in an operating system?
John> None, really.  The purity program itself is fine, and as it has
John> been revised lately (omitting the worst of the tests), the
John> package looks fine too. If we want to give people a pointer to
John> more data files available on some FTP site somewhere, that would
John> seem OK as well.

	As woould including the tests, and warning eople that some
 tests may be offensive to some. Also, like fortune, the tests maybe
 deleted at install time.

John> 1) Legal problems related to distributing these sorts of "adult"
John> materials.

	What legal problems? Which country? Even with notices slapped
 on and confiration required during installation? 

John> 3) Public relations problems once people see that we are
John> distributing that sort of thing.  There are a lot of people
John> using Linux that are minors and this puts us in questionable
John> legal situation in the US. And that doesn't even begin to touch
John> what the parents of these people may think about it.  We could
John> face a PR nightmare here.

	Censoring packages is also a PR problem. I'd like to say that
 we do not place value judgements on packages. I'd feel worse about
 censorship than a package some find funny, and others react strongly
 to. I undertand the need for Penthouse and smut on the network. If
 you don't, you don't (IMHO) really understand the need for the first
 amendment. I also see how an open distribution like Debian has parts
 that may offend one. I just don't install those packages.

John> Use a bit of common sense.

	I think I can say the same to you.

John> Surely you would agree that this is not the sort of thing that
John> should make up an operating system, especially one that is
John> attempting to provide an alternative for users of Windows.
	
	We have already agreed that popularity is not our main
 goal. *Free* software is our goal. I think Purity is a fine example
 of hacker culture, and should be the part of a UNIX-like OS. 

>> Saying "free speech is fine but don't force me to be part of the
>> distribution of this stuff" is NOT good enough.  As a project we've

John> This is not the argument.  Free speech is not the issue.

	I think it is, though maybe not in the narrow legal sense.

John> People are "censored" (your word) all the time in situations
John> like this.

	And corporations sell software. Lots of them do. Should Debian?
 This is a very bad argument. He did a bad thing, other do it all the
 time, so it is justifiable and moral? what kind of an argument is
 that?

John> Corporations decide what products to ship and whose ideas will
John> be used and whose ideas will not be used.  People like RedHat
John> I'm sure exercise some control over what goes into their
John> software.

	Right. RedHat also sells the distribution. It is, by our
 definition, non-free. Not something I'd like Debian to emulate. I
 think we answer to a higher standard of freedom.

	Well, in any case I contend that Debian should not be
 exercising editorial control like this. 

>> set out to provide people with information as well as just software
>> - numerous documentation-only packages exist.  To say that a
>> particular

John> This is not what our social contract states.  It says that we
John> are "guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
John> comunity."  I really don't think that most users of Unix need
John> this sort of thing in an OS, and since it is not really software
John> that is in question, I don't think the second part applies.

	So we are not to ship anything that "most users of Unix need
 in an OS"? How is that determined? What criteria are used to ensure
 that it is not someones subjective (biased) opinion? 

John> In light of Bruce's recent announcement regarding the election,
John> it worries me that there is a lack of common sense here.

	I can turn around and say the same about your message.

John> There is nothing to say that just because we aren't putting smut
John> in here that we must take off other things.

	Smut? 

John> Some have (incorrectly) claimed that if we remove this, that we
John> must remove the Bible from here.

	Incorrectly?

John> Wrong.

	Indeed?

John> The Bible is not offensive.

	Really? And the purity package is not smut. 

John> And as a Christian, I would not be offended if some Buddhist or
John> whatever wants to put their religious texts in here since there
John> are Christian texts in here.

	That's you. You are not offended. I may be. You are offended
 by Prity. I am not. See a pattern here?

John> It's not the same issue, so let's quit trying to make it to be
John> the same.

	It's not the same thing just because you say so?

	manoj
-- 
 These screamingly hilarious gogs ensure owners of X Ray Gogs to be
 the life of any party. X-Ray Gogs Instructions
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .