On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:33:54PM -0500, Josh Metzler wrote: > On Sunday 05 December 2004 08:25 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:21:04PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > > > On 05-Dec-04, 09:07 (CST), Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:45:56AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > > > > > On 05-Dec-04, 04:55 (CST), James Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > There's no excuse for censorship, ever. > > > > > > > > > > Okay everybody, repeat after me: Choosing not to distribute a given > > > > > package is NOT censorship. > > > > > > > > And telling somebody else that they can't distribute a given package > > > > IS censorship. > > > > > > I haven't told anyone that they can't distribute it. We, Debian, can > > > choose not to distribute certain materials w/o it being censorship. > > > > You say it as if the whole project was in agreement about something. > > > > What is actually happening here is that one individual Debian > > developer is choosing to distribute a given package, and some other > > developers are trying to stop them. That's censorship. Even if they > > don't have the authority to do it (that just makes it ineffective > > censorship). > > Actually, the developer is choosing to have Debian distribute a package, and > others are trying to stop Debian from distributing the package.
Word games. Censorship is when a citizen of one body chooses to have that body distribute something (by being a citizen and distributing it), and another citizen tries to stop them. That body could be a country or it could be Debian. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
