> Am Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 19:46:38 schrieben Sie: > > No, this can't result in a lawsuit against Debian, please take your > > bullshit elsewhere, kthxbye. > At least in Germany, it can. It is not legal to insult a person in public > (even with free speech). So if Sebastian Dröge is indeed from Germany, he > could sue if Debian continues to distribute the above insult after taking > notice of the offending lines. > > I think this is unlikely, but the possibility is there.
Although I'm from Germany I'll definitely won't sue Debian, I don't think this partical German law is a very good one and being a DD I consider myself as a part of the Debian project too. > I also very much doubt this is the only instance of profanity in the > source code of packages in Debian (grep the Linux kernel source for > "colourful" words sometime), so I'm not sure why this is such a big > issue. The only difference here being, that all instances of "colourful words" in the Linux kernel sources I'm aware of are attacking specific hardware of software instead of individuals. > > I agree with Andreas Barth. This is bad style, and it even could > > result in a law suit brought upon the Debian project. > > So just replace the offending lines please. > > Can the severity descriptions or policy be updated to reflect this > then? Serious is currently listed as > "a severe violation of Debian policy" or "in the package maintainer's > opinion...unsuitable for release." on > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities; nothing I could find > in a quick perusal of the linked policy at > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ appeared to address this sort > of situation. As currently written (excluding anything relevant I > missed in the policy) I don't see how anything other than "minor" or > "wishlist" can apply. Unfortunately I have to agree with you here, there really seems to be nothing in the policy or severity descriptions which would justify a RC severity for this bug. Nonetheless I believe that this should be added. > To the best of my knowledge, the next upstream release will not contain > this particular code snippet anyway, but that's probably still quite a > long way off given the activity that's happening in upstream svn. Well, the upstream code is just a bit nicer now: http://www.sacredchao.net/quodlibet/changeset/4267 > I don't really see that this issue is serious enough to warrant > repacking the upstream tarball, and patching the binary package doesn't > seem to achieve anything either, since the only way someone would see > this is if they went looking. What exactly is your proposed solution > here? It's not like repacking a tarball is that much of work ;)
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
