Re: an idea for next generation APT archive caching
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:04:32 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:11:44AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: >> Here's an idea I just had about apt-proxy/apt-cacher NG. Maybe this >> could be interesting, maybe it's just crap. Your call. > My position on special-purpose proxy caches for APT is that > general-purpose proxy caches (like squid) seem to work fine for me. > What advantages do they have for others? Optimization? With a special purpose proxies I can control how the cache gets updated. For example, I want to keep two versions of packages I use around -- the current, and the previous one, no matter how old. Hard to do with Squid, which does not know these two files ar4e different versi9ons of the same package. Also, I could work with code that understood apt methods, but did not understand http proxies (this is not a strong argument, I know). manoj -- I always had a repulsive need to be something more than human. David Bowie Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:54:05 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Okay, that's what t-p-u is roughly for, but the fact is that it's >>> quite painful. >> >> Could you elaborate on that? Why is it so painful? > Probably because you need maintain packages for both unstable and > testing at the same time. That is a simple branching issue in the version control system, no? manoj -- Whenever one finds oneself inclined to bitterness, it is a sign of emotional failure. -- Bertrand Russell Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Security updates for sarge?
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 05:10:26 +0200, Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ingo Juergensmann [u] wrote on 22/10/2004 18:35:
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 06:13:46PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>>
>>> Because they have set up and maintain the buildd network.
>> Yes, nice, well done, thank them for their initial work, but it
>> seems as if it's up for others now to take over that job, because
>> they obviously failing continuously doing it now.
> I must admit I thought something similar: Why the hell are there
> only two people who know how to do it, when two people doesn't seem
> to be enough?
Are you volunteering to go out and better educate yourself to
take on this work?
>It might be better if they postponed further work on
> the buildd network and used that time to introduce others to the
> job. In the end, this might very well speed up the whole process. At
> least, it gets some more redundancy (what happens if one of them
> gets ill while the other is on a prolonged journey?). Two people
> who can do the job certainly isn't nearly enough for such important
> jobs in a project as big as Debian. I would think it should be at
> least 5-6 people.
Again, are you volunteering to go out and learn how to do it?
Or is this yet another time wasting rant?
> Heck, If I were a DD, I would be glad to help whereever needed. The
Ah. Just a spectator, booing and hissing at the people who
have stood up to be counted.
> So, if my help is wanted with one of the first three of those, I
> will gladly file a NM application immediately.
Please do. We need more workers, and less lawyers.
manoj
--
Zeus gave Leda the bird.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:46:32 +1000, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 02:40:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:54:05 +0200, J?r?me Marant >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Okay, that's what t-p-u is roughly for, but the fact is that >> >>> it's quite painful. >> >> >> >> Could you elaborate on that? Why is it so painful? >> >> > Probably because you need maintain packages for both unstable and >> > testing at the same time. >> >> That is a simple branching issue in the version control system, no? > A huge rush of air fills the list as hundreds of developers fill > their lungs to collectively say "I don't use version control"... Really? Good good, I would expect developers to adhere to this most basic of recommended software practice. manoj -- Obviously I was either onto something, or on something. Larry Wall on the creation of Perl Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Security updates for sarge?
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:40:58 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Again, are you volunteering to go out and learn how to do it? Or >> is this yet another time wasting rant? >> >>> Heck, If I were a DD, I would be glad to help whereever >>> needed. The >> >> Ah. Just a spectator, booing and hissing at the people who have >> stood up to be counted. > Manoj, please stop. I would much rather that the peanut gallery stop, in which case I would never have intervened. > The last time this came up, at least four people offered to help. At > least one of them (me ;-) considers himself to be qualified and > experienced enough to do the job without further help from anybody. Are you, then, setting up a system for the security team to be able to build packages for testing? (you did mention you needed no further help from anybody). Is there a reason you are not indeed putting things in place? > Asking whether people want to leatn how to do the job is thus > pointless. No, having people who merely want to come up with rants against people who are doing the work is a good thing. If you don't think things are being done well enough, and that you can do better, by all means go ahead and scratch your itch. manoj -- "The part I think I'd like best is crushing people who get in my way." Calvin Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:27:41 +0900, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:14:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:23:48 +0900, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >> >> > And why not, instead of freezing unstable, make it build against >> > testing, when er try to freeze testing ? >> >> Libraries. If you build against a library version that is no longer >> in unstable, then you may have issues in testing when a new library >> tries to migrate into testing -- cause nowhere would there be >> packages built against the new library version. > I don't see the point. If you build against what is in testing, > there's no issue when migrating to testing. One particular issue And you wouldn't ever be able to run unstable, so what's the point of having it if people don't test unstable? > would be when libraries change ABI, and new packages would need to > be built against them, but still, at that particular time, the > purpose being mainly to freeze testing, these ABI changes should be > candidates for experimental. In other words, stop all development dead, since experimental is never ever used as a default ditribution by anyone sane. >> Not to mention that unstable would become unviable as a >> distribution -- the run time libs may not be the ones that are >> needed by the packages in unstable. > At that particular time, isn't frozen-testing the one that is > supposed to be a distribution ? If unstable is not a distribution, what the hell is the point of having all the paraphernalia of unstable around? The whole point of uploading to unstable is to have people test packages in unstable. > On top of the problems mentionned by the other replies, the fact > that autobuilders have to be set up for t-p-u... can you remind me > how long sarge has been planned for freeze ? and for how long > autobuilders are required for alpha and mips for t-p-u ? This is incorrect, t-p-u is indeed supported by buildds -- though this paragraph seems to be more like a rant than anything else. manoj -- Psychiatry is the care of the id by the odd. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Security updates for sarge?
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:30:37 +0200, Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava [u] wrote on 23/10/2004 21:43:
>>> I must admit I thought something similar: Why the hell are there
>>> only two people who know how to do it, when two people doesn't
>>> seem to be enough?
>> Are you volunteering to go out and better educate yourself to take
>> on this work?
> You know perfectly well that there _are_ people out there who know
> how to do it.
And don't seem to have the time or the motivation to do it,
i=or it would have been done. Until it is done, all people who rant
at the current situation would be better off learning how to and
actually doing something, rather than coming out with more hot air.
> Also: I offered my help if it is wanted (see below),
And that is very good indeed.
> but I see no point in learning what's needed to work as a buildd or
> ftp admin for debian while I know perfectly well that helping hands
> in these areas is regularly declined by those in charge.
Umm, empty promises are often ignored, yes. Setting up a
tested infrastructure, I think, would not be ignored.
> If my help is indeed wanted: Yes. Under the current circumstances
> (with no definite acknowledgement that my help will be accepted):
That's not how things work.
> no.
Ah. Thought not.
> Also you are in no way responsive to my main point: Why are there
> only two people doing the job when quite a few more people have
> already offered to help (and are indeed qualified to do the job)?
Cause they got off their butt and did things? (rather than
talk about how good they would be at helping out, if only people
formed cheering squads and go Rah! rah! rah!
>> Or is this yet another time wasting rant?
> You mean like your post?
Yup, mine was an anti-rant rant.
>>> Heck, If I were a DD, I would be glad to help whereever
>>> needed. The
>> Ah. Just a spectator, booing and hissing at the people who have
>> stood up to be counted.
> And who decline help every time the subject of their work load comes
> up?
You ain;t ever gonna get a gilded invitation. That is not how
free software works.
>>> So, if my help is wanted with one of the first three of those, I
>>> will gladly file a NM application immediately.
>> Please do.
> Fine. Where do you want me to help?
Weherever you can scratch your itch.
> When I know where my help is wanted and accepted, I will gladly file
> the application. Until then I currently see no point in doing so
> (putting more load on the DAM without having actual work for me to
> do).
Don't bother. With that attitude, I don't think you are gonna
last long in free software. If you continue to look externally for
gilded invitations and rah! rah! aquads.
>> We need more workers, and less lawyers.
> Exactly my point. Problem is that the current workers are doing
> everything to keep others from being able to do their work.
If the so called wanna-be workers are so easily dissuaded, I
am not sure they aree the workers we are looking for. Moving along
now.
manoj
--
And miles to go before I sleep. Robert Frost
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Reproducible, precompiled .o files: what say policy+gpl?
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:40:31 +0200, Wesley W Terpstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:27:25PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> Wesley W. Terpstra dijo [Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 09:59:36PM +0200]:
>> > At this point my question is only academic; the pure-gcc in main,
>> > icc-prebuilt in contrib solution seems to solve my concerns just
>> > as well.
>>
>> I have only one concern with this: What happens if you drop the
>> package and someone else takes it? He will no longer be able to
>> compile it with icc, and the icc-prebuilt users will be left out in
>> the cold. What would you say to that?
> He can upload a version to contrib which depends on the version in
> main and has no contents. Then the icc users are automatically
> converted to gcc.
Why not go the contrib route to start with, and avoid these
potential surprises?
> Or else, if he is an open-source developer who makes no money from
> his debian work, he can download icc from their site for free. Just
> universities and paid researchers like me have to pay. Sniff.
Just because I make not money from Debian does not mean I am
willing to sell out to non-free software. There _is_ a principle
involved here, you know.
manoj
--
Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed. Neil Armstrong
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:52:17 +0900, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 12:11:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > [...] >> If unstable is not a distribution, what the hell is the point of >> having all the paraphernalia of unstable around? The whole point >> of uploading to unstable is to have people test packages in >> unstable. > If people test unstable, then it's unstable we should release, not > testing. As somebody said in this thread not enough people are > trying testing, and that's one of our problems in the release cycle. World is not binary. As it is, we have people testing both unstable and Sarge, giving us two levels at which bugs may be caught and fixed. And the only numbers I have seen quoted about usage seem to indicate that testing is indeed being run by a whole slew of people. > [...backwards a bit...] >> In other words, stop all development dead, since experimental is >> never ever used as a default ditribution by anyone sane. > Stop all development ? See the situation for gnome 2.8. It is in > experimental. It is compiled for several architectures, and is maybe > soon ready to be put in unstable. Do you really call that stopping > all development ? Anecdotal evidence is not the singular for data. I am speaking about past experience, where yes, by and large, development was indeed stopped. Obviously, there are exceptions to any rule. >> This is incorrect, t-p-u is indeed supported by buildds -- though >> this paragraph seems to be more like a rant than anything else. > Okay, it's a month old, but there hasn't been any since. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2004/09/msg5.html > "We are also still missing official autobuilders for > testing-proposed-updates on alpha and mips. All other architectures > appear to be keeping up with t-p-u uploads." Missing a buildd on an arch or too is a far cry from t-p-u being unsupported. > Take it as a rant if you want, but I'm just noticing. Frankly, I am not seeing this as a big pain in the butt. It is a deficiency in support for some of the supported architectures, yes. manoj -- Do you think your mother and I should have lived comfortably so long together if ever we had been married? Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:45:15 +0200, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > also sprach Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.26.1916 +0200]: >> > Lastly, the policy promises that /usr can be read-only and >> > guarantees software to be fully functional. >> >> Now, where is the possible policy bug? > Section 9.1.1 of the policy. The software writes to /usr, which is > to be treated as read-only at any time other than package > management. Thus, effectively, dpkg is the only tool allowed to > manipulate files in /usr, though other tools are used from time to > time (e.g. ln(1)), but only during installation or removal of the > owner package. Again, what's the policy bug? manoj -- Zeus gave Leda the bird. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Comparing FHS 2.3 and 2.1
Hi, I have been trying to determin the changes in FHS 2.3 (as opposed to FHS 2.1 that we already follow) to see what changes have occurred. 1) === FHS 2.3 adds: == 3.3: Specific Options The following directories, or symbolic links to directories, must be in /, if the corresponding subsystem is installed: Directory Description home User home directories (optional) lib Alternate format essential shared libraries (optional) root Home directory for the root user (optional) Each directory listed above is specified in detail in separate subsections below. == We comply. 2)== In /bin, /bin/ed is no longer mandated, however, /bin/hostname is. (We comply). 3) == Language related to /bin/sh was cleaned up. Mention of Csh removed. [ and test must be in the same dir now. (We comply). 4)== Added optional dirs /etc/sgml and /etc/xml. The number of mandatory files in /etc has dropped. (We comply). It does, however, seem to say we need /etc/X11/XF86Config instead of our XF86Config-4, and want /etc/X11/Xmodmap (optional, thank goodness). NOT COMPLIANT* 5)== User specific configuration files for applications are stored in the user's home directory in a file that starts with the '.' character (a "dot file"). If an application needs to create more than one dot file then they should be placed in a subdirectory with a name starting with a '.' character, (a "dot directory"). In this case the configuration files should not start with the '.' character. I have no idea if we comply, but this is a new requirement. dunno 6)== Allows stuff like /lib64 or the like. /media is added as mount points -- stuff that used to go under /mnt, which is still retained. There a re a number of required subdirectories under /media, which we don't have. Also, /srv should exist. NOT COMPLIANT* 7)== /usr/local/etc may be a link to /etc/local, /var/lib/hwclock/adjtime has been moved here from /etc So, we have a few minor things to tweak (/media, /srv, and the XF86Config stuff, and then we should be OK to move to FHS 2.3 in Etch. Unless, of course, there are things I missed. manoj -- A gen'ral sets his army in array In vain, unless he fight and win the day. -- Denham Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Drop testing
On 25 Oct 2004 13:05:51 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Anthony Towns writes: >> * One of Testing's goals was to be 95% releasable at all times. >> * It hasn't been. >> * Why not? >> (a) RC bugs >> (b) Can't install it >> (c) Security vulnerabilities > This is the crux of the problem, I think, but I'm a little confused. > How does (a) contribute to this? The assumption behind an RC bug is > "we can't release with this bug unfixed". But the problem is that, > of course, we *do*, and we *have*, because many RC bugs are in > things we have already released. In other words, woody has RC bugs > in it Right Now. But that doesn't stop us from continuing to call > it stable. Did we know it was a RC bug when we released it? I think not. We do not live in a environment where we have perfect information, so we do the best we can. However, if we let known RC bugs slide, the resulting release would be far worse -- since now ew have bugs we do not know about at the point of release, and bugs that we did, and let slide. > So the RC bugs should not be blocking release unless they are *new* No. If they are release critical, they are critical -- and they block the release. Anything else impacts the quality of distribution and starts a slippery slope towards mediocrity. We have already blown it as a distribution with cutting edge releases -- our reputation rests on quality, and r0ock solid stability. > RC bugs which don't already exist. In other words, a new stable > release shouldn't be worse, but it doesn't have to be maximally > better. It shouldn't have new RC bugs, but it's tolerable if it > continues to have the same old ones. I vehemently disagree. We are not people who have found common cause to only slowly deteriorate towards mediocrity; we are folks who are trying to put together the best possible distribution of Linux. If people want a good enough distribution, they can try mandrake or red hat. manoj -- Mount St. Helens should have used earth control. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Comparing FHS 2.3 and 2.1
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:16:59 +0200, Nikolai Prokoschenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:46:47PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: >> > Speaking of which: there used to be some proposed addition to FHS >> > about re-locating all dot-files into ~/etc or some directory like >> > that. Does anybody know what happened to that? I'm aware of the >> > problems (sharing $HOME over several different machines etc.), >> > but but I'll be glad if the mess were out of $HOME. >> I think there is little hope here. There are too many apps out >> that treat home directory as a wastebasket, and probably Linux/Unix >> itself will be obsoleted faster than all those. > Most applications can be patched to use another directory for their > cruft. It's just the "legal" sutff I'm currently interested in, as > as soon as it is "recommended" by FHS, it can become a part of > e.g. Debian Policy and get enforced by patches. Actually, if it is not common practice, it would probably mean that Debian would not adopt FHS 2.3 fully, only bits of it, and policy would then enshrine the current practice, and it would be even harder to change things. So, if you have patches ready, I suggest you get moving on having them implemented, and not wait for policy to have to outlaw your patch set. manoj -- Four thousand different MAGNATES, MOGULS & NABOBS are romping in my gothic solarium!! Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Documentation on handling of orig.tar.gz files for Developer's Reference or for Debian Policy
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:58:55 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > , >> A repackaged .orig.tar.gz [...] must not contain any file that does >> not come from the upstream author(s), or whose contents has been >> changed by you. > ` That sounds reasonable to me. oir.tar.gz is supposed to be _upstream's_ sources. not a mix of stuff from upstream plus stuff added later. It may not have _all_ the upstream provided things, if we can't distribute them. > This poses the following questions: > 2. Do you think that - although alternative methods exist - a binary >file may be changed or added by creating a new orig.tar.gz file? No. >Or do you think this must be done by adding a uuencode'd file (or >similar) in diff.gz? That is the eay it is usually done, yes. > 4. What is the right place to document the changes made to the >orig.tar.gz file? Some possible places would be >- the get-orig-source target in debian/rules (see Policy 4.8) Not visible enough. >- a README.Debian-source in the debian directory (i.e. in the > diff.gz) This sounds fine, since this can then also be shipped with the binary .deb file. >- a README.Debian-source file added to the orig.tar.gz Nothings gets added to the upstream in orig.tar.gz > Personally, I think that the last possibility should be a > requirement. The main reason is that I think that our archive should > be a good source for Free Software even when one does not want to > use the Debian Operating System (and indeed we provide lots of > mirrors for software with no or only a couple of mirrors). It would > be annoying if one had to download the diff.gz just in order to > learn what was changed in the orig.tar.gz file. If you get the .dsc fle, or you get the .deb, which are the units we distribute, you shall have exact;ly what was done to the upstream tarball. Not having you download the diff.gz is not valuable enough to destroy the invariant that we add nothing to the orig.tar.gz, or that everything in the orig.tar.gz came from the upstream author. Violating these basic invariants for the sake of something as ephemeral as optimizing for bandwidth would be a fallacy; bandwidth costs decrease ast. apt-get source foo is as valid a way of getting sources from debian as any (indeed, getting the source package may be the _only_ supported way of getting sources from Debian). Since the modification is available whenever you get a source or binary package from Debian, documenting it in a README file in the debian diff is eminently satisfactory, in my opinion, and it has the least element of surprise, in that we did not add anything to a file meant to carry sources from the upstream author. manoj -- Well, the handwriting is on the floor. Joe E. Lewis Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Documentation on handling of orig.tar.gz files for Developer's Reference or for Debian Policy
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:39:44 -0800, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 10:22:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:58:55 +0100, Frank Küster >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > , >> >> A repackaged .orig.tar.gz [...] must not contain any file that >> >> does not come from the upstream author(s), or whose contents has >> >> been changed by you. >> > ` >> That sounds reasonable to me. oir.tar.gz is supposed to be >> _upstream's_ sources. not a mix of stuff from upstream plus stuff >> added later. > That assumes an easily measurable definition of "upstream". And a > sharp distinction between "upstream" and "DD" that may not actually > exist (e.g. a DD may be a member of upstream). Red herring. The upstream sources mean sources available from _upstream_ -- and has little to do with what comprises upstream teams, or whether the upstream team is mostly debian developers. How about this rule of thumb: If you get stuff from the primary NON DEBIAN distribution site, that is what you call upstream. What someone unconnected to debian, not using debian archives, downloads is what we also offer as upstream orig.tar.gz files. > I'm not at all sure how this rule would apply, for example, to my > own pilot-manager_1.107.0pre108.orig.tar.gz. Everything in there is > from upstream's website, except my own note on how I put the pieces > together. Do I need to remove that note? I think so, yes. > That seems like a really bad idea. Why? There are a number of ways I can think of to enhance upstream sources -- like adding man pages, etc. In any case, how you put things together for Debian belongs in the changes you made for debian. Pristine upstream means pristine upstream. Either get your notes added to upstream website, or put them in the diffs. So, please curb your interest in improving upstream sources by modifying the upstream tarball. If the changes are not Debian specific, then by all means push them upstream. Do not prevaricate to our suers by pretending that some material is the same as they can get upstream, when it is not. >Anyway, I was upstream project leader for most of the > last year, up until about a week ago, when I stepped down in favor > of someone more enthusiastic. But I'm still an upstream developer. That is quite irrelevant. manoj -- It's more than magnificent -- it's mediocre. Sam Goldwyn Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Documentation on handling of orig.tar.gz files for Developer's Reference or for Debian Policy
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:16:20 +0100, Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi, Am Montag, den 01.11.2004, 10:58 +0100 schrieb Frank Küster: >> - a README.Debian-source file added to the orig.tar.gz > I think this is should be done, or any other way that clearly marks > the .tar.gz as modified (even if only files are removed, it is a > modification). Anyone downloading a .orig.tar.gz file from debian > should be able to safely assume that it really is the "original > .tar.gz". If this for any reason is not right, there should be a > note attached. The most convenient way to do so is to include a file > like this in the tar.gz. Substitute "source package" for orig.tar.gz , and you have my support. We _should_ docment any deletions we made from the upstream sources in our own source package, but I think we should do it without munging the upstream source file any further. Yes, people downloading source packages from Debian should not be in the dark, but we should not be adding material to the upstream source tarball willy nilly. manoj -- All of life is a blur of Republicans and meat! Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Documentation on handling of orig.tar.gz files for Developer's Reference or for Debian Policy
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 12:45:36 -0800, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:47:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:39:44 -0800, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >> > I'm not at all sure how this rule would apply, for example, to my >> > own pilot-manager_1.107.0pre108.orig.tar.gz. Everything in there >> > is from upstream's website, except my own note on how I put the >> > pieces together. Do I need to remove that note? >> I think so, yes. > So in other words, I'm to be punished for my negligent maintaining Oh, _do_ grow up. > of the upstream website? And all I need to do to satisfy your silly > complaint is to scp my note to the website somewhere? Do I need to > provide a link anywhere? How about if I simply add a link on the > upstream website to the tarball on Debian's servers? You may throw how ever many childish tenmper tantrums you want, or exercise your 'leet abilities to "Look! I can change upstream to match whatever I ship! Anytime! Mua hah ahhaha", but the simple fact remains: what you are shipping as orig.tar.gz does not match what people can download from the upstream site, and it is deviating from the recommendation that we ship pristine upstream as far as legally possible. manoj -- Please don't put a strain on our friendship by asking me to do something for you. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Documentation on handling of orig.tar.gz files for Developer's Reference or for Debian Policy
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:04:44 -0800, Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:47:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> How about this rule of thumb: If you get stuff from the primary NON >> DEBIAN distribution site, that is what you call upstream. What >> someone unconnected to debian, not using debian archives, downloads >> is what we also offer as upstream orig.tar.gz files. > I think it's more important that our users *know what they're > getting* than that we try to enforce some sort of arbitrary > distinction between "Debian" and "upstream". And so they should. Every source packages from debian should have that information. (And I mean source package formally -- .dsc and friends). > Clarity is why I chose "107.0pre108" as a version number. I don't That is another red herring, though it is good you selected a clear version number. > see how it's that much different from our various cvs-snapshot > packages, except that in my case, upstream wasn't using any sort of > version control at the time I made the package - they just had a > loose collection of patches and replacement files available on their > website. Umm, CVS snapshot packages have a clear version number as well -- which again is good -- but is irrelevant to mangling upstream source tar balls. >> Pristine upstream means pristine upstream. Either get your notes >> added to upstream website, or put them in the diffs. > We don't require "pristine upstream". For example, we remov Did I say we required them? We do, however, recommend that we ship pristine upstreams as far as possible. e > non-DFSG compliant portions. Many licenses require that changes be > documented. So if we modify the upstream source to remove the > non-DFSG portions, and _don't document that_ (because of a new > policy rule that forbids any debian-authored portions of _orig > tarballs), then we may be violating licenses. Bravo, for belabouring the obvious. >> Do not prevaricate to our suers by pretending that some material is >> the same as they can get upstream, when it is not. > I don't think I am - I think it's quite clear that 107.0pre108 is > quite different from 107. But you are stuffing material in there that us not in the upstream sources. If merely versioning makes itr clear to users that things are different, why do you need to mangle the upstream by adding material in there? >> >Anyway, I was upstream project leader for most of the >> > last year, up until about a week ago, when I stepped down in >> > favor of someone more enthusiastic. But I'm still an upstream >> > developer. >> That is quite irrelevant. > Actually, I agree. I think the fact that I can solve "the problem" > by sticking the tarball I made on the upstream website at any moment > I choose is, or should be, irrelevant. I think the tarball I > created should be acceptable in any case. I think it's quite clear > what I created, and I don't think there's any intent to confuse our > users, and I think that should be sufficient. Just because you can fix the situation by retroactively modifying upstream does not alter the fact that you have chosen to add material to a file you call orig.tar.gz , which, I think, violates at least the principle of least surprise. manoj -- The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. Aldo Leopold Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Updated SELinux Release
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:06:06 -0500, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 13:15 +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: >> default: no. > Why not on by default, with a targeted policy, for everyone? > SELinux's flexibility allows one to easily turn it off for specific > services. There's a lot of value in preventing a compromised or > misconfigured syslogd or portmap daemon from destroying your system. > Not to mention Apache; with the stronger version of can_network, the > Slapper worm would have been stopped in its tracks (no outbound port > 80 access). Additionally, I'm working on securing some high-risk > software using the targeted policy; something that would be > difficult to impossible to do without SELinux. > The entire point of SELinux is to bring strong, flexible mandatory > access control to a mainstream operating system (Linux). If it's > not enabled by default, and limited to the few of us on this mailing > list, what's the point? Why don't we just run say EROS > (http://www.eros- os.org/) instead? A: Because what makes SELinux > interesting is that it can run all of our legacy software. By not > shipping it on everywhere, we're not tapping that ability. This is all very nice, but I think we need to take an evolutionary change to reach that goal. The first step, far more palatable than forcing SELinux (even with just a targeted policy) is to get SELinux in the default kernels, disabled by default at boot time. manoj -- Harp not on that string. William Shakespeare, "Henry VI" Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Updated SELinux Release
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:40:41 -0500, Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Manoj, if you're referring to our conversation earlier on IRC, I > said that I have no personal interest in selinux, but I had no > problems with it being included as long as it's not a significant > performance hit. I requested that you take it up on the > debian-kernel list, though. That request still stands; the kernel > team is not a single person, nor is it comprised an IRC channel. I've had other conversations about this. And, incidentally, if SELinux is compiled, but not enabled, there is _no_ perceptible hit, significant or otherwise. > I assume you're referring to #249510, in which Christoph mentioned > it was a 5% performance penalty. That's significant, especially for > people who don't care about selinux. Your argument of "well it's > not 20%, is it?" is bogus; throwing features into the kernel, each > having a 5% performance penalty hit, quickly add up. Before this gets out of hand, the 5-7% performance hit is for SELinux being enabled; merely compiling it in, and having the default setting being that SELinux is disabled at boot time unless selinux=1 is given on the kernel command line means there is _no_ performance hit of that magnitude. All you have is LSM, at that point, and the number quoted were for SELinux enabled kernels, not justr kernels with LSM. Now, I am not proposing we enable SELinux with a tergeted policy (which would incur the 5-7% hit) -- I am merely asking the SELinux option be compiled in for Sarge. manoj -- GOOD-NIGHT, everybody ... Now I have to go administer FIRST-AID to my pet LEISURE SUIT!! Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Alioth Project Denied
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:18:43 -0600, Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 11:31:09AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Your project registration for Alioth has been denied. >> >> Project Full Name: Window Maker Debian Package Project Unix Name: >> wmaker >> >> Reasons for negative decision: >> >> If you decide to use an alioth project to comaintain a package, you >> need to include a "pkg-" prefix in your project name. This is >> required to be able to differentiate projects dedicated to Debian >> packaging from projects where alioth is the main repository of >> "upstream" code. >> >> Please resubmit your project with a good name. > a) I couldn't find a policy in the website > b) It's very rude to reply anonymously, someone care to put a name > behind this email? > c) Can't you just do it yourself? > But whatever, I'll jump thru the hoops if that's what it takes. > This project is making a custom out of threating developers like > crap. Says he, trashing the alioth developers. Did you try and help the guys puting alioth together with their email dialogue? Did you even try to help improve the system instead of jumping on them and trashing their effort from the get-go? Pot. Kettle. Black. manoj -- Serocki's Stricture: Marriage is always a bachelor's last option. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Compiling in SELinux in the default kernels
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to gmane.linux.debian.devel.kernel as well. Hi, I would once again like to bring up the possibility of compiling in support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving them disabled by default at boot time. This can be accomplished by setting CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE==0 in the configuration (I am attaching a suggested set of security related configuration options below). The last time I brought it up, I was told that his has already come up on the list, and the reason we do not compile in SELinux is that there is a performance hit on doing so. On doing further research, I have discovered that yes, there is a 5-7% performance penalty on *running* SELinux -- but that is a whole different ball game. If SELinux is compiled in, and disabled at boot, there is no discernible performance hit -- benchamrks show that any effect is lost in the noise (since the only effect is that of the LSM hooks alone). I think this would be really helpful to our users, since then they can chose to try out SELinux by just adding a stanza to grub or lilo -- try things out in non-enforcing mode, for instance. I also notice that 2.6.9 kernels are not slated for Sarge (having just acquired an grave bug to ensure that), I strongly urge that the 2.6.9 kernel configuration be modified for SELinux. manoj KERNEL CONFIGURATION Under Filesystems, be sure to enable the Ext[23] extended attributes and Ext[23] Security Labels options (CONFIG_EXT[23]_FS_XATTR, CONFIG_EXT[23]_FS_SECURITY). Under Pseudo Filesystems, be sure to enable the /dev/pts Extended Attributes and /dev/pts Security Labels options (CONFIG_DEVPTS_FS_XATTR, CONFIG_DEVPTS_FS_SECURITY). Under Security, be sure to enable all of the following options: Enable different security models (CONFIG_SECURITY) Socket and Networking Security Hooks (CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK) Capabilities Support (CONFIG_SECURITY_CAPABILITIES) NSA SELinux Support (CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX) NSA SELinux Development Support (CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_DEVELOP) NSA SELinux boot parameter (CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM) Excerpts from my working config below: == CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y CONFIG_EXT2_FS_XATTR=y CONFIG_EXT2_FS_POSIX_ACL=y CONFIG_EXT2_FS_SECURITY=y CONFIG_EXT3_FS=y CONFIG_EXT3_FS_XATTR=y CONFIG_EXT3_FS_POSIX_ACL=y CONFIG_EXT3_FS_SECURITY=y # # # Pseudo filesystems # CONFIG_DEVPTS_FS_XATTR=y CONFIG_DEVPTS_FS_SECURITY=y # # Security options # CONFIG_SECURITY=y CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK=y CONFIG_SECURITY_CAPABILITIES=y # CONFIG_SECURITY_ROOTPLUG is not set CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX=y CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM=y CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE=0 CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_DISABLE=y CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_DEVELOP=y # CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_MLS is not set -- Trying to break out of the Tempter's control, one's mind writhes to and fro, like a fish pulled from its watery home onto dry ground. 34 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><http://www.golden-gryphon.com/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Compiling in SELinux in the default kernels
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:02:04 +0100, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi! Manoj Srivastava [2004-11-05 1:39 -0600]: >> I would once again like to bring up the possibility of compiling in >> support for SELinux in 2.6.9+ kernels, but leaving them disabled by >> default at boot time. [...] I think this would be really helpful >> to our users, since then they can chose to try out SELinux by just >> adding a stanza to grub or lilo -- try things out in non-enforcing >> mode, for instance. > I fully support this, however, SELinux seems to be a quite intrusive > story. As opposed to grsecurity/LIDS/RSBAC/etc. I think it needs a > bunch of patched system packages to work properly. That is correct, and that is being worked upon. > I did not thoroughly check this recently, but I don't think that all > patches went in the default distribution already. Just look at >> 227972, an outstanding RC bug with no reply, open for nearly 300 >> days now. While it is true that selinux-policy-default is uninstallable in Sid, and it is not likely to be working in Sarge, the idea is to get the patches into core packages (coreutils, procps, etc) so that selinux-policy-default would actually work. Currently, there is an aptable repository od SELinux packages on deb http://www.coker.com.au/newselinux/ ./ which is needed to get things working (and that does have the new pam stuff). > So in addition to providing kernel support, it would be great to > also ship the necessary user space stuff in Debian proper. Then we > could label ourselves as "SELinux support out of the box", which > would be really a good asset. :-) I think most people are in agreement on this score. manoj -- Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. --anonymous Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: spamassassin3 - is memory usage ok now?
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:52:26 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi, I can remember some people complained that spamassassin3 had > increased ressource usage. For the people who had problems: Are they > fixed now with the new release that appeared in unstable? Well, it hadn't dropped any of mya mail for days, and indeed, the load average on my remote mail box is 0.08 right now, not 39.99 that it used to be at. I use -m 2 and nice level 15. manoj -- Fill what's empty, empty what's full, scratch where it itches. Alice Roosevelt Longworth Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:49:21 +, Brian M Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom. Bugs > will be filed: And shall be promptly closed on the packages singled out below. > gnus make message pgg > 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation > Licensed-material; > 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license > of the material in their copyright files; > 3) at serious severity (DP sec. 2.2.1 and 12.5); > 4) with reportbug -m (maintonly@); > 5) by a human, with all facts checked first. manoj -- Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in. H.R. Haldeman Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:26:29 +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Nov 17, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> And documentation is not software. > Since the "editorial changes" (LOL) general resolution, for Debian > everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the > DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us. You are the one revising history. When we voted on the SC, it was expected by me, and the author, and a whole slew of other people that what we were talking about applied to eveything on an official Debian CD. manoj -- FOOLED you! Absorb EGO SHATTERING impulse rays, polyester poltroon!! Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:20:42 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribió: > [...] >> > Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we >> > have >> > a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after >> > Sarge's release? >> > >> > Here's the result I'm thinking of: >> > >> >http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 >> >> No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous >> wording, IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that >> vote in consideration) states that "Debian Will Remain 100% Free >> Software". debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please >> correct me if I am misstating the consensus) the Debian >> distribution must consist completely of free software. So if it is >> not software or it is not free, then it would not be qualified to >> be in the Debian distribution. > And documentation is not software. Say what? It sure as hell ain't hardware. And, between software, hardware, and wetware, stuff shipped in Debian is software. manoj -- The memory management on the PowerPC can be used to frighten small children. Linus Torvalds Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:44:59 +, Brian M Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribió: >> >> [...] >>> > Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't >>> > we have >>> > a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after >>> > Sarge's release? >>> > >>> > Here's the result I'm thinking of: >>> > >>> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 >>> >>> No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous >>> wording, IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that >>> vote in consideration) states that "Debian Will Remain 100% Free >>> Software". debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please >>> correct me if I am misstating the consensus) the Debian >>> distribution must consist completely of free software. So if it >>> is not software or it is not free, then it would not be qualified >>> to be in the Debian distribution. >> >> And documentation is not software. > Have you heard of the Lisp HTML program? Which is it, documentation > or software? Both. manoj -- Alcohol, hashish, prussic acid, strychnine are weak dilutions. The surest poison is time. -- Emerson, "Society and Solitude" Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:24:11 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:10:13AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: >> If it is a program, it is software. > And so my Python code that includes docstrings is what? Software. > What are PostScript files? Software. > The line is not as easy to draw as you might think. On the contrary, the line is not so arcane. Computer related stuff is either a) software, b)hardware, or c) wetware. Simple. manoj -- If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. Maslow Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:05:45 +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 18, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Since the "editorial changes" (LOL) general resolution, for
>> > Debian everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the
>> > DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us.
>> You are the one revising history. When we voted on the SC, it was
>> expected by me, and the author, and a whole slew of other people
>> that what we were talking about applied to eveything on an official
>> Debian CD.
> And in all these years you all did not notice how it was violated
> and never complained about it? How weird.
I see I have to dot my i's and cross my t's; I had over
estimated my audience.
The thought that we were not ensuring that everything on the
Debian CD was not DFSG free, and I was unaware of any incidents (I
trsuted the release team to take care of release issues). When the
GFDL issue was brought to my attention, I researched it, and was
starting to build a project wide position statement when I was shut
down hard a year ago.
I also voted in the editorial changes that clarified what I
thought the SC had always said.
What have _you_ done about it?
manoj
--
"Government sucks." Ben Olson
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:46:18 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Put such possibly controversial matter in contrib? No. Contrib is meant for things that depend on stuff that is not free, and is not a dumping ground for stuff yuu do not like. > Is contrib on > disk 1? If not, then at least disk 1 would be legal anywhere. I think it is perfectly legal to sell disk 1 -- like it is to sell even explicitly pornographic material. > Should this be moved to debian-legal? Only if you think distributing the code is illegal. manoj -- He who laughs has not yet heard the bad news. Bertolt Brecht Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:08:59 -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > However, pornography causes significant legal problems in the US, > and probably moreso in many other countries. If I give a Debian CD > containing this software to a minor, am I distributing pornography? Hmm. I see pictures of nudes by Raphael in some of the national geographic magazines -- and there is nudity in the pictures of the sistine chapel. The old testament of the bible talks about various and sundry unsavoury things, and yet it is given to children even in churches. Let us not get hysterical here. > I would ask, for this reason, that the software not be included in > Debian main. Hey, I worry about the obscenity which is vi, and I ask that vi not be distributed in debian main. What, is your opinion is worth more than mine? manoj -- There is an order of things in this universe. Apollo, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" stardate 3468.1 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:33:38 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:32:37AM +, Tim Cutts wrote: >> >I would ask, for this reason, that the software not be included in >> >Debian main. >> >> I think this is a strong argument. But it probably also applies to >> things like the bible. There are countries in the world where >> distributing the bible is illegal. It is presumably therefore also >> illegal to distribute Debian in those countries. >> >> If there's going to be a policy of this sort it should be >> consistent. > We can't remove everything from Debian that is illegal some obscure > place for some obscure reason. We can't even *know* what these > things are, and in this instance, you haven't cited a specific > location where the Bible might be banned. China? Myanmar? > In a more general sense, whether you are religious or not, there is > no denying that the people inspired (for good or ill) by the Bible > have left a remarkable impact on human history, influencing > everything from the ancient Roman empire to the recent American > election and slavery abolition movements in centuries past. There > is great historical and literary value there. Even if one doesn't Pornography and prostitution (the oldest profession) have equally affected art and culture. Indeed, pornography is an early adopter, and drives all kinds of innovation in communication. > believe the accounts there, it provides context for a great many > events in our history on this planet. There is a, IMO legitimate, > argument that banning this work would indeed be banning something of > value to scholars, researchers, and everyday citizens. As would banning the nudes done by old, dead, flemish paintrers. Oh, these are not wrth what those nudes are, you say. So now it comes down to Debian being an art critic, and saying what nudes constitue art, and what do not. Yes, the package may be in bad taste, in my opinion. But so is vi, also in my opinion. Opinions of bad taste ought not to be deciding factors for inclusion of stuff in main. > Such could hardly be said for a stripping CPU monitor, which seems > to have no useful purpose at all. "Appeals solely to the prurient > interest" in the words of some American laws. In a few rural > Southern counties, I believe it is illegal even for adults to > possess such material. In mobile, it is illegal to direct a young white male to a game of pool, so all the pool games in Debian are technically illegal in Mobile. There are a number of locations where gambling is illegal, as are all games of chance. Hmm. Do I see us ripping out the poker games from Debian? How about all them shoot 'em up violent games that lead oiur youth to murder and mayhem? Do we scrap them too? manoj -- Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up. G.K. Chesterton Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:17:37 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > However, I'd be *highly* agitated if someone gave my daughter a > CD-ROM with *any* nudy cartoons. I Would be highly upset if anyone gave my kid a CD-ROM with the bible, or even vi on it. manoj -- If food be the music of love, eat up, eat up. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:39:49 -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > That's also beyond the scope of this discussion. which should be > entirely about the legal risks and obligations (if any) Debian > undertakes when it begins distributing material that may be deemed > pornography. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You distribute games of chance in large portions of the south you risk going to jail too. And then thereis the violent video game statutes in some counties -- all them scrolling shooter, first person shooters, nethack, rogue -- all may fall under violent video games. Not to mention sex.1 in emacs ;-) manoj -- "No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:58:45 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 20:26 +0100, Eric Lavarde wrote: >> Hi again, >> >> perhaps to bring down the conversation to something more >> constructive, I think we should base decision to have something or >> not in Debian: >> 1. _NOT_ on personal belief (else we would probably end with >>nothing). >> 2. _NOT_ on local laws (same comment). > But we should be able to pass out Debian disks to children without > fear of newspaper stories like "A young girl yesterday found > pictures of naked women of a Linux computer disk" and be able to > pass them around in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, etc without threat of > the passer and the passee being beaten or thrown in jail by the > Morality Police. Right. We should not have games like quake, doom, or nethack,. since they promoite murder and mayhem and eating of corpses. No scrolling shooter, since they teach our young to kill. And all them games of evil cards and chance, out, I say. No poker. No dice. Ans surely the game of pool is the spawn of satan. >> Personally, I find Bellamy's pictures quite artistic and not >> aggressive, but I would say, Women on the list should decide on >> this one (criteria 5). Can people who use editors decide on whether to keep emacs or vi as well? manoj -- Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced -- even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it. -- John Keats Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:43:24 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 01:06 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 01:58:45PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: >>> > On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 20:26 +0100, Eric Lavarde wrote: >>> > >>> > But we should be able to pass out Debian disks to children >>> > without fear of newspaper stories like "A young girl yesterday >>> > found pictures of naked women of a Linux computer disk" and be >>> > able to pass them around in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, etc >>> > without threat of the passer and the passee being beaten or >>> > thrown in jail by the Morality Police. >>> >>> Uh. If you live in a country where you could be thrown in jail >>> because someone gave you a CD-ROM containing almost 650MB worth of >>> software of which less than half a meg contains nudity cartoons, I >>> think you have a bigger problem than said nudity. >> >> That's beyond the scope of this discussion. >> >> However, I'd be *highly* agitated if someone gave my daughter a >> CD-ROM with *any* nudy cartoons. > Then you'd better not bring your daughter to Europe. I am sure she > would see much more explicit drawings and photos in the > advertisements by the side of the road or on TV. Or to art museums. manoj -- Reality always seems harsher in the early morning. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:57:07 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > In germany games must be rated for distribution to minors. Anything > that didn't pay and get itself rated is automatically 18+. > So please (NO DONT, irony) remove all games (like tetris, very > dangerous to minors) from debian main since they make distributing > Debian to minors illegal. Hey, frozen bubble is a menace to society -- think of all the productive hours lost. manoj -- There are twenty-five people left in the world, and twenty-seven of them are hamburgers. -- Ed Sanders Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:01:08 -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 13:26, Eric Lavarde wrote: >> Hi again, >> >> perhaps to bring down the conversation to something more >> constructive, I think we should base decision to have something or >> not in Debian: >> 1. _NOT_ on personal belief (else we would probably end with >>nothing). > Agreed. >> 2. _NOT_ on local laws (same comment). > Disagreed. If Debian is illegal to distribute to some important > section of people in the world, because we include strange > noncritical bits of software (hotbabe, the bible), then we have a > real problem. In that portion of the world, sure. DSebian should continue to practice freedom, and hope that those portions of the world get better in time. >> 4. does it respect basic democratic values? Please demonstrate how vi respects basic democratic values. >> 5. does it respect other people's belief and personallity? vi does not respect my belief or personality. manoj -- Lack of skill dictates economy of style. Joey Ramone Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:09:48 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > If my wife saw my son with these pictures on a disk that I gave him, > she'd take a frying pan and beat me dead. I am sure I would say the same about the bible. Hard enough to raise a child without false gods being preached at to them from the debian cd. Also, all them games of chance should not be there either. Nor all the violent games. No killing of hordes of orcs. orcs were once elves, you know. > Disk 1, at least, should be able to be given to anyone on the planet > with a computer, without worry of any legal, spousal (or parental, > for that matter) grief. oboy. can we get rid of vi from disk 1 then? finally? > Let him find girlie pictures on his own. So, you would encourage him to search the wilds of the internet, rather than some tame cartoons in hot-babe? weird. manoj -- A hundred years from now it is very likely that [of Twain's works] "The Jumping Frog" alone will be remembered. -- Harry Thurston Peck, Jan 1901. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 04:45:27 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 12:30 +0100, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote: >> El Miércoles 01 Diciembre 2004 04:22, Simon Law escribió: >> > > But we don't care about legal problems until somebody is coming >> > > to complain to us. That's how Debian is working till the >> > > moment. Otherwise it should be impossible to release any >> > > software (because software patents, for example). >> > >> > I believe people are complaining _right_ _now_. >> >> I meant: when some external people is expressing some legal >> concerns to Debian in this subject. Like the software patents >> situations. ASAP, we don't remove patented sofware if we don't know >> that there will be problems with that patent. >> >> I think the point here is that some developers have some moral >> concerns with this program, and they are trying to find some legal >> arguments to avoid this program entering in Debian. > *No*, that's *not* true. The thought (well mine, at least) is, "not > in main, not on Disk 1". When you say not in main, it means not in debian. > Let them do "# apt-get install hot-babe bible-kjv" and all will be > well. I am not sure we should cater to the repression of freedoms in parochial laws, cause well, you can find a lot of stupid laws in different parts of the world. manoj -- Of course there's no reason for it, it's just our policy. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:01:46 +0100, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > And exhibitioning of naked women only is discrimination... It was suggested in irc to provide instead pictures of male genitalia in various stages of tumescense ... Please feel fre to contribute to free software. manoj -- As well look for a needle in a bottle of hay. Miguel de Cervantes Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:23:10 -0500, William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 12:31:57AM +0100, Thibaut VARENE wrote: >> Of course, if you can be shocked by nudity, don't use it! > I don't think things like this belong in the main distribution. > It's funny and all, but it sets a bad precedent and will scare the > straights. I don't think vi belongs in debian either, but hey, opinions are like ..., everyone has one. manoj -- Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:17:19 +, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Rather than argue about morality, legality, whatever, shouldn't we > be considering this in other terms - simple usefulness? Instead of > asking "why shouldn't this go into Debian?", ask "why _should_ this > go into Debian?". Great idea. I find cpu monitors useful. I find vi useless. > We seem to have a growing and worrying trend to pick up any random > free software and add it to the distribution without considering > whether it's actually useful or not... Yeah, should have nipped the whole vi clone family in the bud. manoj happy to demonstrate that preferences are a bad way to form an inclusion policy -- It's not whether you win or lose but how you played the game. Grantland Rice Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:06:12 -0500, William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:51:55PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote: >> I'm not sure, how »pornography« is defined in the US and I really >> didn't intend to join your nice discussion, but could you please >> keep in mind, that it just show rough pixely pictures of a drawn >> woman? > It's designed as "soley for the prurient interest." "You know it > when you see it." > The status of justice with her boobs hanging out isn't. This is. It is? > Gray areas are when things like hippies have oral sex on stage and > call it a play. (That isn't pornography.) "Behind the Green Door" > was an artistic movie that primarily serves to demonstrate a woman > deep-throating somebody. That is. > It has to do with intent. The intent here is clear. Egad, you're a mind reader, then? manoj -- May a hundred thousand midgets invade your home singing cheesy lounge-lizard versions of songs from The Wizard of Oz. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:35:04 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 21:23 -0500, David Nusinow wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:51:55PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote: >> > I'm not sure, how »pornography« is defined in the US and I really >> > didn't intend to join your nice discussion, but could you please >> > keep in mind, that it just show rough pixely pictures of a drawn >> > woman? >> >> The problem with pornography in the US is that it isn't >> defined. It's officially "I'll know it when I see it." Tread >> carefully. > Add to that, "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" if the > disk gets in the hand of a juvenile (the younger the "better") and > the prosecutor is up for re-election or has further political > political ambitions. Same goes for gampling software, and violent games. Or, in some locales, anything that promotes free speech or religion. manoj -- I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:54:20 +0100, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > ??? There was a 15 years old Boy for two or three years in Iran and > he was hanged-up because he was searchin for a program, downloaded > it and it was containing a Dialer which had downloaded Erotic > pics... I would not like to be in the position of panderingf to such insanity. Hmm, if we flood iran with enough pr0n, perhaps they'll all kill each other off, and we can inject some sanity into the country. manoj -- Your boss climbed the corporate ladder, wrong by wrong. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:34:34 +0100, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Am 2004-11-30 00:31:57, schrieb Thibaut VARENE: >> Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist >> >> * Package name : hot-babe >> Description : a rather erotic graphical system activity monitor >> >> hot-babe is a small graphical utility which display the system >> activity in a very special way. When the CPU is idle, it displays a >> dressed girl, and when the activity goes up, as the temperature >> increases, the girl begins to undress to finish totally naked when >> the system activity reaches 100%. >> Of course, if you can be shocked by nudity, don't use it! > Sorry, but in some countries there is pornography and nudity > illegal. Like arabian and persian countries. > So I think, it is not a realy good idea to includer "hot-babe" in > the Debian main stream. > I do not like to go to prison in Iran or may be killed because I > have such application on one of my Desktops. The solution is to change iran, not try to change the rest of the world to bve implicit in the oppression. manoj -- I suggest a new strategy, Artoo: let the Wookie win. C3P0 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:06:18 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:30:24PM -0200, Everton da Silva Marques wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:12:21PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: >> > >> > Am 2004-12-01 13:16:11, schrieb Fernanda Giroleti Weiden: >> > > >> > > First of all, it's a sexist package, sure. Putting a program on >> > > Debian in which you have pictures of nude women is VERY >> > > agressive to the most women. Yes, it's agressive to me. >> > >> > And I was thinking, I am alone... >> >> It's VERY oppressive to force hot-babe out of Debian because of >> personal feelings about nudity. It's pure anti-speech insanity >> leading the way to socialism. > How about we leave it out because it's crap, then? From all accounts, it seems to be a well done piece of software -- just its choice of images is an issue. > Why stop at cartoons? Once it's themable, we should ship some > photographs too. And don't worry about the load monitoring, let's > just ship some porn for the sake of it. Call it test data for > pornview or something. Hmm. I would like some Raphael budes, yes. and some studies by michelangelo too. Oh, you think that is not porn? manoj -- If at first you don't succeed that is only to be expected--there is a little bit of good even in the best of us. (No one is as good as he thinks he is.) Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:15:16 +1100, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Personally, I don't have a problem with the package as-is -- the > pictures aren't exactly the most graphic thing that's likely to pop > up unannounced in a web-browser window, but the authorities frown on > distributing anything tittilating to minors in a lot of places, so > I'd "vote" for making it a series of pictures of a tree shedding > it's leaves or something in the default incarnation. These nebulous authorities also frown upon various other things, depending on your jurisdiction -- games of chance, the bible, games promoting violence, texts promoting freedom .. Descending to the lowest common denominator shall leave you with the husk of an operating system. manoj -- Liberty don't work as good in practice as it does in speeches. The Best of Will Rogers Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:06:13 +, Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi all,
>> Hi all, I read all the thread and I noted you are forgeting a main
>> problem about this package. In my point of view: First of all, it's
>> a sexist package, sure. Putting a program on Debian in which you
>> have pictures of nude women is VERY agressive to the most
>> women. Yes, it's agressive to me.
> It is also offensive to me. I doubt that we are unusual in this.
It is indeed in bad taste.
> [...]
>> When the sexism problem is gone, the other question we have to
>> discuss is: is it a problem to have this kind of pictures go into
>> Debian?
> I think that is the main issue here. I would like to believe that
> Debian is capable of showing more respect for other people than
> including hotbabe in the distribution would indicate.
Debian's policy about inclusion of software goes beyoind
respecting people offended by it; it is based on whether the software
is free, and if a developer is convinced enough of its utility to put
in the work to package it.
All kinds of people are offended by all kinds of things, and
Debian policy has een not to sit in judgement on content.
manoj
--
If you analyse anything, you destroy it. Arthur Miller
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:49:18 +1100, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > However, I get the impression that giving children access to nude > pictures is generally considered wrong in a number of different > cultures and countries. In a number of countries pictures of women with their hair showing is illegal. Strictly speaking, creating images of living things is illegal too -- Aurangzeb had the heads of birds and bears and animals chiseled off the murals and statues since it went against the preachings of the prophet. Now, unless you want to remove mozilla since it has the picture of a head mebedded in it, give the stupid local laws a rest. manoj -- If it ought to be done, then do it; apply yourself to it strenuously. A lax man of religion just spreads even more dust. 313 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:38:19 +, Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 21:30, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> There are a number of locations where gambling is illegal, as are >> all games of chance. > That's "gambling" as in "wagering a stake on a game of cards" not > gambling as in "playing cards". Teaching kids to play poker will get you in trouble in quite a few places in Alabama, whether or not there is money on the table. manoj -- Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:32:18 +, Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 21:35, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Right. We should not have games like quake, doom, or >> nethack,. since they promoite murder and mayhem and eating of >> corpses. > So far so sarcastic. IMO if it can be demonstrated that distributing > something is illegal we should think about not distributing it. > We are not the EFF. If they or anyone else wants to fight for the > right to look at cartoon tits then that's fine by me. We are trying > to build an operating system. I think. And we have no time to set up i judgement over content -- there is a clear criteria for inclusion of packages in Debian already. manoj -- The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And littered with sloppy analysis! --anonymous Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:41:30 -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:42, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:01:08 -0600, Joe Wreschnig >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 13:26, Eric Lavarde wrote: >> >> Hi again, >> >> >> >> perhaps to bring down the conversation to something more >> >> constructive, I think we should base decision to have something >> >> or not in Debian: >> >> 1. _NOT_ on personal belief (else we would probably end with >> >>nothing). >> >> > Agreed. >> >> >> 2. _NOT_ on local laws (same comment). >> >> > Disagreed. If Debian is illegal to distribute to some important >> > section of people in the world, because we include strange >> > noncritical bits of software (hotbabe, the bible), then we have a >> > real problem. >> >> In that portion of the world, sure. DSebian should continue to >> practice freedom, and hope that those portions of the world get >> better in time. > But by this logic, Debian should include every bit of software it > can -- if those countries with pesky copyright laws won't let us > distribute it there, then we hope that portion of the world gets > better in time. Debian will continue to practice freedom. I think this is mostly correct. > Of course, that's stupid. I am in awe f your debating technique. > We need to decide what statutes if any this program could violate if Cool, for all the jurisdiction, it'll probably take 10 lawyers for every DD. > distributed, and if the risks of alienating/denying that portion of > users (in this case, people under 18/21 in various countries Debian > is currently "ok" in) are worth it. And how do we find who we are alienating? Oh, I know: lets have a GR. manoj -- Collaboration, n.: A literary partnership based on the false assumption that the other fellow can spell. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:10:59 +, Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 17:12, Michelle Konzack wrote: >> > We need to discuss this point and find a technical way of solving >> > the first. >> >> erotic.debian.org > It seems to me this is the sensible solution. When we could not > export crypto from the US for legal reasons we created non-US. Now I > think it is as significant an issue to distribute items such as > hot-babe. Cool, we legitimize Debian Pr0n. > It may be a "free speech" issue and people may not want to > compromise, but this is the way that a significant part of the world > is, and we have to be pragmatic. Do we need hot-babe in main? I > don't think so. Is it a significant problem to have it there? Yes it > is in many countries. It is illegal in many countries to have images of living things -- or pictures of women with their head uncovered. Pragmatism, in this case, is the enemy of freedom. BTW, the DFSG is not very pragmatic, nor is the social contract. We have drawn a line there, that's what defines us. > We are not talking about something subjectively offensive but a real > legal problem. As am I -- lots of legal problems in lots of domains. manoj -- Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. Gandhi Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 00:39:12 +0100, Maciej Dems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> PatrzÄ w ekran, a to Michelle Konzack pisze do mnie:
>> > someone maintains it. To the pictures - maybe we could avoid the
>> > problem by making the thing theme-able, distribute a
>> > unproblematic version (e.g. only down to the bikini) along some
>> > other nice pictures (sunrise, tree loosing trees). The program
>> > could then offer a link to a website where the user can easily
>> > download .tar.gz'ed themes which can be installed using drag 'n
>> > drop - and everyone would be happy.
>>
>> Agreed. - This is a first class suggestion.
> It solves only one-small-package-problem, not the more general
> issue.
> Threre should be some document (part of the Policy most probably)
> which covers such situations if they emerge in the future. Otherwise
> some time in the future we will have another two-hundred-posts-a-day
> tread concerning simmilar topics.
The criteria is simple.
a) If the package is legally free to distribute in the two locations
we have (master and non-us) and
b) it is DFSG free
c) a DD puts in the time and effort to package is, and maintain it
It gets into debian. Simple, non controversial. Relies of the
judgement of developers, yes. But so does the rest of Debian.
manoj
--
If you stick your head in the sand, one thing is for sure, you're
gonna get your rear kicked.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:34:06 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:53:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:32:18 +, Will Newton >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: And we have no time to set up i >> judgement over content -- there is a clear criteria for inclusion >> of packages in Debian already. > We have no need to. We can collectively make reasonable decisions > without having to set up a constitional authority to do so. At this point, there is no mechanism by which we can try and exclude packages out of debian which offend one (believe me on this. vi would have been long gone otherwise). The only thing you can do is either convince all the ftp-masters not to process it, or get a GR going. Or convince every DD not to upload the package in question. > On this particular question, you are right that we cannot set up a > purley objective mechanism to decide a subjective question. What > you are missing is that we don't have to. > What you are also missing is that we jeopardize our stated goal -- > making a quality Free operating system -- by trying to push into it > something that so many people find objectionable, exploitative, and > illegal. A lot of people find various things in debian objectionable. Others do not. And people finding this package illegal -- I'm sorry, I do not see a clearcut argument that has so convinced me. Indeed, I am pretty sure that the images in this package are not illegal to distribute, either on a website (I have seen several urls posted), not as a package. Feel free to proce (not just offer opinions that I might be) wrong. > Perhaps you believe that there is no content that should be illegal. Heck, no. Some content, like kiddie porn, is indeed illegal. I have seen no evidence that the content in question is. > That is, however, not the case in much of the world. Child > pornography is illegal in much of the world, and I might add rightly > so, especially it is so often associated with abuse, exploitation, > and even slavery. Wonderful paper tiger you attacked -- and well executed too. > If not, then your arguments about it being impossible to set a line > are moot. Rubbish. We set the line at illegal content, and by that criteria, this is not illegal to distribute, and hence hot-babe is in. > While we are also discussing legality, before advocating the > inclusion of pornography in Debian -- which is distributed to adults > and minors by all manner of organizations worldwide -- please > remember that the organization that holds Debian's legal assets, > SPI, is incorporated in the United States and is subjected to United > States laws. SPI does not govern Debian's behaviour. > I for one do not think that the cause of including porn in Debian is > worth it. How many people here are willing to go to jail so that we > can include porn in main? Oh, yes, the sky is falling. > Are you? Why? Have you any proof the content is illegal to distribute? Seems like it has been up and around for a while. Indeed, material even worse than that is present on web sitres situated in the US. Seems to me that this is mere FUD, trying to prevent expression of artistry you are offended by. > If you claim there is no line we can draw, then if we agree with > you, there is no reason to keep child porn out of main either. Can > we please use some common sense? When you stop creating paper tigers to atrtack, we can talk, manoj -- "It's morally wrong to let a sucker keep his money." Canada Bill Jones Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:03:59 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > You are quite right. We cannot fight all battles for everyone. > Let's make an operating system. And stop trying to censor data and make sure our users are only exposed to RightThink. We should stop being the morL guardians of the free world, and let licenses, and what is legal to distribute, govern what goes in Debian. manoj -- In the future, you're going to get computers as prizes in breakfast cereals. You'll throw them out because your house will be littered with them. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 21:57:20 -0500, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wednesday 01 December 2004 06:55 pm, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > But by this logic, Debian should include every bit of software it >> > can -- if those countries with pesky copyright laws won't let us >> > distribute it there, then we hope that portion of the world gets >> > better in time. Debian will continue to practice freedom. >> >> I think this is mostly correct. > So, do you think DeCSS should be included in main? Why or why > not? Cause it is illegal to distribute in the countries where master and non-us machines live. manoj -- I think there's a world market for about five computers. attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:23:21 -0600, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:55, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:41:30 -0600, Joe Wreschnig >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:42, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:01:08 -0600, Joe Wreschnig >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> >> >> > On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 13:26, Eric Lavarde wrote: >> >> >> Hi again, >> >> >> >> >> >> perhaps to bring down the conversation to something more >> >> >> constructive, I think we should base decision to have >> >> >> something or not in Debian: >> >> >> 1. _NOT_ on personal belief (else we would probably end with >> >> >>nothing). >> >> >> >> > Agreed. >> >> >> >> >> 2. _NOT_ on local laws (same comment). >> >> >> >> > Disagreed. If Debian is illegal to distribute to some >> >> > important section of people in the world, because we include >> >> > strange noncritical bits of software (hotbabe, the bible), >> >> > then we have a real problem. >> >> >> >> In that portion of the world, sure. DSebian should continue to >> >> practice freedom, and hope that those portions of the world get >> >> better in time. >> >> > But by this logic, Debian should include every bit of software it >> > can -- if those countries with pesky copyright laws won't let us >> > distribute it there, then we hope that portion of the world gets >> > better in time. Debian will continue to practice freedom. >> >> I think this is mostly correct. > I think you misunderstood me. I meant *any and all programs*. After > all, just because I can't legally exercise my freedoms to modify and > distribute Microsoft Word here in the US, that shouldn't stop us > from putting it in. It's just US copyright law being dumb. As I have posted elsewhere, we only distribute things that are legal to distribute, and then we only put DFSG free bits into Debian. This package is not, as far as I can tell, either illegal to distribute, or DFSG non-free. > No, that doesn't work. There's some base level of stuff that's so > unlawful we don't include it because it would cut off far too much > of the userbase (or cause them to commit illegal acts). Enforced > patents or situations where taking advantage of the freedoms > outlined in the DFSG are two of them. Would you have Debian include > child pornography if it was DFSG-free and someone wanted to maintain > it, and it was legal in their country? Arguing from a false premise, I've answered this above. >> > We need to decide what statutes if any this program could violate >> > if >> >> Cool, for all the jurisdiction, it'll probably take 10 lawyers for >> every DD. > Or we could use common sense. My common sense tells me this package is not illegal to distribute. In bad taste, but not illegal. >> > distributed, and if the risks of alienating/denying that portion >> > of users (in this case, people under 18/21 in various countries >> > Debian is currently "ok" in) are worth it. >> >> And how do we find who we are alienating? Oh, I know: lets have a >> GR. > Don't put words in my mouth. I hate GRs. That, unfortunately, may be the only recourse you have, if this thing ever gets packaged. manoj -- Rule of the Great: When people you greatly admire appear to be thinking deep thoughts, they probably are thinking about lunch. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:43:56 +, Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 22:44, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> These nebulous authorities also frown upon various other things, >> depending on your jurisdiction -- games of chance, the bible, games >> promoting violence, texts promoting freedom .. >> >> Descending to the lowest common denominator shall leave you with >> the husk of an operating system. > Well don't then. Take each case on it's merits. There's no need to > wilfully lump it all together. If we are bothered about laws > governing software licenses, why are we not bothered about laws > governing other things? Are they beneath us? Who gets to decide for each case? Usually it is the person who does the work who makes the decision -- the packager, in this case. The only way to override that is call in the tech ctte -- but this is not a technical issue. Yup, a GR for each case. Heh. manoj -- "Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)."-- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:47:47 +, Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 22:15, Andrew Suffield wrote: >> Anybody who can't obtain porn using only the tools provided on a >> Debian CD is a total moron. You might as well complain that the >> internet is bad, just because it's primarily used as a vehicle for >> delivering porn. > No. We are talking about "distributing" hot-babe. Debian never has > and probably never will distribute "teh Intarnet". We cannot stop > people doing anything with Debian that is within license terms once > it is installed, but we can be held responsible for what we > distribute. Yup. We also distribute purity-ogg. fortunes-off, and the bible. >> [And that's without even starting on this insane notion that trying >> to stop kids from seeing porn is somehow a good idea] > Debian should have no moral concern, but a legal one is valid IMO. Right. There does not seem to be any indication that this material, like pictures of Raphael's nudes, is illegal to distribute. > A concern about filling the archive with crap is a different thing > altogether... Yup. need to get rid of vi. manoj -- A woman was in love with fourteen soldiers. It was clearly platoonic. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:53:41 +0100, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Quoting Fernanda Giroleti Weiden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> Hi all, I read all the thread and I noted you are forgeting a main
>> problem about this package. In my point of view:
>>
>> First of all, it's a sexist package, sure. Putting a program on
>> Debian in which you have pictures of nude women is VERY agressive
>> to the most women. Yes, it's agressive to me.
> As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me the
> most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most
> contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is
> likely to hurt the feelings of several women (probably not all, I
> don't know) as well as, indirectly or not, some men.
Packages can hurt feelings, yes. vi hurts mine. The bible
hurts other peoples. purity-off also hurt a lot of peoples
feelings. Can't please everyone. There are over 15k packages in
debian. Some of them surely hurt the sensibilities of a lot of
people.
Get over it. I have had to.
> I have indeed no intention for objection this package in any
> matter. I'd just hope that the maintainer proposing it realizes
> that, though he personnally doesn't think so, his work may hurt some
> people.
That would solve matters, yes.
manoj
--
Just when you thought you were winning the rat race, along comes a
faster rat!!
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 23:47:11 +, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> We need to decide what statutes if any this program could violate >> if distributed, and if the risks of alienating/denying that portion >> of users (in this case, people under 18/21 in various countries >> Debian is currently "ok" in) are worth it. > Agreed. If Debian were seen to be distributing pornography, I think > it could cause untold damage to our reputation, and much more > potential legal problems than e.g. non-US ever did. We distribute purity-off, and fortunes-off, some of which content is deemed vulgar, and perhaps even pornographic. >> The feeling I get from the thread so far is that most developers >> don't consider this pornography, and so okay to distribute to >> minors. Or alternately, if it is, then we don't care about blocking >> distribution of Debian to people in the affected countries because >> they have bigger problems. Fine, then I have no problem including >> it, though I will lament the continual archive bloat for Yet >> Another System Monitor. > FWIW, I don't think this should be included in Debian, either. I > don't like pornography, I don't think we should be distributing > pornography (even if it's cartoons), and we already have enough far > too many system monitors. Sure, I find the package in bad taste. And we have many editors, we do not need to distribute vi, which I find offensive as well. But my opinions seem to carry little weight. > To be honest, I'd rather more time was spent on better integrating > and fixing the packages we have got, rather than trying to package > absolutely every piece of free software out there. No one is stopping you, are they? > I don't see a lot of value in packaging peoples "my first shell > script" or minor variations on common programs. I'd like for the No one is forcing you to. > bar for new packages to be set rather higher than it is at the > moment, and if it doesn't add any value over existing equivalents or > have much general use it doesn't get in. Umm, when I package new stuff, the effort that goes into that, and the fact that I am signing up to fix bugs, etc, is an indication that I think there is value added by that package. manoj -- Q: What do Winnie the Pooh and John the Baptist have in common? A: The same middle name. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:44:22 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 01:30 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:34:06 -0600, John Goerzen >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:53:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:32:18 +, Will Newton >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: And we have no time to set up >> >> i judgement over content -- there is a clear criteria for >> >> inclusion of packages in Debian already. >> > [snip] >> > If not, then your arguments about it being impossible to set a >> > line are moot. >> >> Rubbish. We set the line at illegal content, and by that criteria, >> this is not illegal to distribute, and hence hot-babe is in. > Yes, it is. Rubbish. Goes to show a little knowledge is dangerous. > http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm > http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?obscenityEnforcement/obscporn.htm > "lewd exhibition of the genitals" And quoting out of context as well. For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Hmm. ok. The first test to be applied, therefore, in determining whether given material is obscene, is whether the predominant theme or purpose of the material, when viewed as a whole and not part by part, and when considered in relation to the intended and probable recipients, is an appeal to the prurient interest of the average person of the community as a whole, or the prurient interest of members of a deviant sexual group, as the case might be. The "predominant theme or purpose of the material, when viewed as a whole," means the main or principal thrust of the material when assessed in its entirety and on the basis of its total effect, and not on the basis of incidental themes or isolated passages or sequences. The principla thrust seems to be to tell me if the CPU is loaded or not -- and, incidentally, show me a cartoon figure in a way which is demeaning to women. I really did not find the work erotic. The second test to be applied in determining whether given material is obscene is whether it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct such as ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; or lewd exhibition of the genitals measured against whether the material is patently offensive by contemporary community standards; that is, whether it so exceeds the generally accepted limits of candor as to be clearly offensive. Umm. exceeds the generally accepted limits of candor as to be clearly offensive? In this day and age, considering the stuff I can see on prime time television? I think this is highly debatable. Contemporary community standards, as stated before, are those established by what is generally accepted in the community as a whole; The internet community that Debian is apart of would consider this fairly tame, considering what a mistyped search engine address seems to pop up on the screen. The third test to be applied in determining whether given material is obscene is whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. An item may have serious value in one or more of these areas even though it portrays explicit sexual conduct. Hmm. Does it lack artistic value? I dummo. The artist seems to have a lot of material that is deemed art. I am not sure the current image is absolutely without merit when it comes to artistic value -- there are things in the MOMA that have deserved the lable less, in my opinion. > See above. Yup. Goes a long way to convince me that I can't trust your judgement. manoj -- I owe, I owe, It's off to work I go... Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:40:47 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 16:29 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:34:06PM -0600, John Goerzen >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [... nonsense ...] >> >> Where did you see someone asking for inclusion of child porn ? > John was taking Manoj's reasoning to the limit. Yup. Arguing by the extremes, while intriguing to some, is extremely jejune. manoj -- "I HATE arbitrary limits, especially when they're small." Stephen Savitzky Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:03:42 +, Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Mike Hommey wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:06:13PM +, Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> I think that is the main issue here. I would like to believe that >>> Debian is capable of showing more respect for other people than >>> including hotbabe in the distribution would indicate. >> Yeah, i would like Debian to show more respect for me, by removing >> emacs and kde. Ah, the guy next door says he wants respect as >> well, and asks removal of vim and gnome. I'm pushing the thing to >> the absurd, but do you realise what you are saying is absolutely >> ridiculous ? > Yes, you are being absurd. Since you are presumably not > understanding the point, let me explain more clearly: > Pornography is widely regarded as being demeaning and insulting to > women. Purity-off is widely regarded as insulting to a lot of people. fortunes-off likewise. And the bible is insulting, with its presumption of godliness of false gods, is offensive to anyone not of the judea-christian-islamic bent of mind. I strongly recommend growing a thicker skin. manoj -- Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. Glaser and Way Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 02:35:39 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 15:23 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:08:59 -0600, Joe Wreschnig >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > However, pornography causes significant legal problems in the US, >> > and probably moreso in many other countries. If I give a Debian >> > CD containing this software to a minor, am I distributing >> > pornography? >> >> Hmm. I see pictures of nudes by Raphael in some of the national >> geographic magazines -- and there is nudity in the pictures of the >> sistine chapel. The old testament of the bible talks about various >> and sundry unsavoury things, and yet it is given to children even >> in churches. >> >> Let us not get hysterical here. > Ok, let's look at case law: > http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm > http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?obscenityEnforcement/obscporn.htm > "That a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a > whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political and scientific > value." "Examples of 'hardcore sexual conduct' that an obscenity > law >could include for regulation under the second prong of the test >are patently offensive representations or descriptions of: > - Ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated > - Masturbation, lewd exhibition of the genitals, excretory > functions, and sadomasochistic abuse." > Note the "lewd exhibition of the genitals". The critical term is lewd. Artistic display of the genitals is fine. > Thus, neither the Raphaels nor the Sistine Chapel would be consid- > ered nudes by any jurisdiction in the country. Why, because the display of the genitals is not lewd? > But the nudy cartoons would, especially in the hand of a minor. As far as I know, we are not selling to minors. There are tings in Debian already that may not be suitable material for minors in the first place. manoj -- "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats." Albert Schweitzer Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:54:06 -0200, Fernanda Giroleti Weiden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Em Qui, 2004-12-02 às 05:45, Manoj Srivastava escreveu: >> >> First of all, it's a sexist package, sure. Putting a program on >> >> Debian in which you have pictures of nude women is VERY >> >> agressive to the most women. Yes, it's agressive to me. >> >> > As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me >> > the most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most >> > contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is >> > likely to hurt the feelings of several women (probably not all, I >> > don't know) as well as, indirectly or not, some men. >> >> Packages can hurt feelings, yes. vi hurts mine. The bible hurts >> other peoples. purity-off also hurt a lot of peoples >> feelings. Can't please everyone. There are over 15k packages in >> debian. Some of them surely hurt the sensibilities of a lot of >> people. >> >> Get over it. I have had to. > Packages can hurts feelings? It's your big conclusion about it? > Don't matters for you the obvious detail about gender equality? Are If you think that a silly cartoon affects gender equality, I suspect you are being over sensitive about things. Yes, this package is in bad taste, and may offend people. I personally think this whole issue has been overblown, but hey. > you thinking to choose to be catholic is the same choice I did when > I was born? Choosing to be offended by what other people do is a choice. > Sorry, but it's so stupid to me. It is sooo nice to hear about your feelings. manoj -- Excuse me, but didn't I tell you there's NO HOPE for the survival of OFFSET PRINTING? Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 23:38:29 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:19:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:06:18 +1100, Hamish Moffatt
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:30:24PM -0200, Everton da Silva Marques wrote:
>> >> It's VERY oppressive to force hot-babe out of Debian because of
>> >> personal feelings about nudity. It's pure anti-speech insanity
>> >> leading the way to socialism.
>>
>> > How about we leave it out because it's crap, then?
>>
>> From all accounts, it seems to be a well done piece of software --
>> just its choice of images is an issue.
> Really? To me it seems trivial and almost useless.
More so than the other cpu monitors in Debian? And I have read
peoples descriptions on how well it fuges from one image to the
next. Seems as useful as the next CPU monitor, and probably far more
titillating than most
> Why bother linking the images with the system load? Just set up an
> applet to display porn and get on with it.
I can see how you view this, and what your predilections might
be. Bit perhaps that is not the major intent of the author or the
users?
>> > Why stop at cartoons? Once it's themable, we should ship some
>> > photographs too. And don't worry about the load monitoring, let's
>> > just ship some porn for the sake of it. Call it test data for
>> > pornview or something.
>>
>> Hmm. I would like some Raphael budes, yes. and some studies by
>> michelangelo too. Oh, you think that is not porn?
> I think calling the hot-babe package and images 'art' is a bit
> farfetched.
So people said about cubism when it was first introduced. Art,
like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. Or are you a member of
the culture mafia?
manoj
--
Laetrile is the pits.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:24:34 +0100, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > * Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041202 08:15]: >> As already written in -women, this is the point which saddens me >> the most in this thread. I'm really disappointed by seeing most >> contributors just not realize why this package, as proposed, is >> likely to hurt the feelings of several women (probably not all, I >> don't know) as well as, indirectly or not, some men. >> >> I have indeed no intention for objection this package in any >> matter. I'd just hope that the maintainer proposing it realizes >> that, though he personnally doesn't think so, his work may hurt >> some people. >> >> Legal nitpicking is another issue, which I personnally do not >> consider the most important one, indeed. >> >> The package is currently sexist, in my opinion. I just hope that >> saying this loud enough will make the maintainers change their >> mind. If it does not, well the result will be another sexist thing >> in free software. >> >> I someday wish I had an opportunity to talk of this with Bruno >> Bellamy, by the way (the artist whose drawings are used in this >> package). His artwork (and good work) is widely used in the free >> software community in France and (personal opinion, still) may >> sometime ring this bell of sexism. > I think you described the important issues quite well. Making a good > distribution is more than just "upload any package which you legally > could". There is no argument against excellence in packaging, and maintenance. Who decides which one of the CPU monitors is one two many? Why should that opinion hold more sway than others? manoj -- Timing must be perfect now. Two-timing must be better than perfect. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:28:23 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:30:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:34:06 -0600, John Goerzen >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:53:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:32:18 +, Will Newton >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: And we have no time to set up >> >> i judgement over content -- there is a clear criteria for >> >> inclusion of packages in Debian already. >> >> > We have no need to. We can collectively make reasonable >> > decisions without having to set up a constitional authority to do >> > so. >> >> At this point, there is no mechanism by which we can try and >> exclude packages out of debian which offend one (believe me on >> this. vi would have been long gone otherwise). The only thing you >> can do is either convince all the ftp-masters not to process it, or >> get a > Well that's a mechanism, the ftp masters frequently reject things. I would be surprised if ftp-masters let personal feeling about content interfere with their official duties -- I am not aware of this being the case. I have heard cases where packages were refused on license grounds. >> A lot of people find various things in debian objectionable. Others >> do not. And people finding this package illegal -- I'm sorry, I do >> not see a clearcut argument that has so convinced me. Indeed, I am >> pretty sure that the images in this package are not illegal to >> distribute, either on a website (I have seen several urls posted), >> not as a package. Feel free to proce (not just offer opinions that >> I might be) wrong. > But your argument was not limited to this particular package. You > also argued that we should not be limiting ourselves by things that > some find objectionable, and extended the question into other nude > images Right. I can imagine a set of background images based on oil paintings by old dutch masters, for example. > . I am simply saying that these things can be illegal indeed. I have yet to be shown that. > And if you think that we are safe in this instance because it looks > fine to us, think again. All it takes is one Southern prosecutor up > for re-election to go after all the vile scum porn perpetrators on > the Internet for us to be in what is sure to be a draining legal > fight, even if we do wind up victorious. That, or one offended > parent. Seems like FUD to me. The prosecutor can go for sex.6, > Don't forget that people can sue us -- and force us to mount a > costly defence -- even if the law is on our side. So even following the law may not help, and we should cover in fear cause people may sue us? Hell, Steve Ballmer says even using Linux can cause law suits -- so shall we close shop and fold out of the picture? >> > If not, then your arguments about it being impossible to set a >> > line are moot. >> >> Rubbish. We set the line at illegal content, and by that criteria, >> this is not illegal to distribute, and hence hot-babe is in. > And yet, at the same time, were you not saying we couldn't do that > because parochial laws differ? In this instance, by whose laws are > we determining that it's legal? Well, all kinds of international patent laws says using linux may be illegal. Are we to heed those people as well? >> > remember that the organization that holds Debian's legal assets, >> > SPI, is incorporated in the United States and is subjected to >> > United States laws. >> >> SPI does not govern Debian's behaviour. > True enough, but the fact that it's incorporated in the United > States makes it subject to US law. That makes it easy to be sued, > assets (read: machines) siezed, etc. This can happen merely cause they are using Linux, and infringing on hundereds pf patents. Your point? >> Have you any proof the content is illegal to distribute? Seems >> like it has been up and around for a while. Indeed, material even >> worse than that is present on web sitres situated in the US. Seems >> to me that this is mere FUD, trying to prevent expression of >> artistry you are offended by. > I am only objecting to it being included in Debian. Oh, sure. Object away. I object to vi too. > It is extremely difficult to prove whether or not such a thing is > illegal in the U.S. because: 1) laws differ based on location, and > 2) it's a subjective question a judge has to answer, and 3) judges > have different subjectiv
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:31:43 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:32:26AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:03:59 -0600, John Goerzen >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > You are quite right. We cannot fight all battles for everyone. >> >> > Let's make an operating system. >> >> And stop trying to censor data and make sure our users are only >> exposed to RightThink. We should stop being the morL guardians of >> the free world, and let licenses, and what is legal to distribute, >> govern what goes in Debian. > And there you go with the red herring. It is not a red herring. It is all subjective -- is it legal? or not? Is it porn? or not? Is it art? or not? Is it useful? or not? Personal taste and opinions are leading the charge against this package. > Nobody is suggesting censorship. Debian has made decisions about > what we include and exclude in our OS for years. Right. And the decision has been made by developers choosing to spend their time packaging stuff they want included. No one orders people to package things. And so far, despite purity, despite offensive fortunes, despite sex.6, > Would you suggest we are censoring because we don't include all of > Project Gutenberg in main? Or because we don't include every GPL'd > package on Freshmeat? Has someone tried to package that, and been told not to? Based on content, or technical issues like archive space requirements? manoj -- A stitch in time saves nine. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:18:16 +0100, David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > While being all for that series of pictures (nature is beautiful), I > find the package pretty meaningless anyway, so I don't see the point > of including it in Debian in the first place. I do, however, see > some relevance to the discussions. It is a CPU monitor. I have three different things running that can show CPU usage -- gkrellm, wmcpu and some multi-function wm-monitor whose name escapes me. I happen to have all the cpu monitors I can use, and I have selected these three out of a list. I am not so sanguine as to assume that my choices would be enough for everyone else, and try and impose my selection on others. At least one user has expressed interest in the package on this very list. manoj -- Well begun is half done. Aristotle Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:38:10 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 03:05:53AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > But the nudy cartoons would, especially in the hand of a minor. >> >> As far as I know, we are not selling to minors. There are > Then you are extremely out of touch. Debian does not sell anything. Some people do; and perhaps they should be told that there is already content in Debian that is not suitable for children without parental guidance. And more may come. > I believe we have minors as developers. I was a minor when I first > joined as a developer, at any rate, and I have personally given > copies of Debian to many minors that have installed and run it > successfully. And I know that I am not alone in that. Now you ought to know better. >> tings in Debian already that may not be suitable material for >> minors in the first place. > Saying "we're already doing this" is completely irrelevant to the > question "is it right". Hobbling a OS to fit the requirements of the lowest common denominator is worse. Hobbling a project that could provide value for adults to meet the needs of unsupervised children is also a shame. manoj -- Uh-oh!! I'm having TOO MUCH FUN!! Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
> Hi all, Em Qui, 2004-12-02 às 07:46, Tollef Fog Heen escreveu: >> * Helen Faulkner >> >> | Pornography is widely regarded as being demeaning and insulting >> to women. >> >> - A lot of people don't think the cartoon is pornography. > A lot of men don't think the cartoon is pornography. Aren't men people too? ;-) >> >> - If you think it is pr0n then I think it would be nice if you >> rather >> provided some other pictures. A sheared sheep or a tree losing its >> leaves have been suggested. Joe Drew (iirc) provided an offer, >> valid two months as of a couple of hours ago that he'd make the >> program themeable if somebody provided graphics. >> >> If you actually _do_ something about the graphics, you are helping. >> Just saying «this shouldn't be packaged because it objectifies >> women» doesn't change the world. > I ask a friend of mine to send me the same kind of pictures of a > man, so I hope I'll have a patch to hot-babe in two days. Ah, so you don't think it was offensive, you just wanted to share in the fun. Fair enough. >> >> I am not saying I don't believe you, I am just surprised that you >> seem to feel objectified and pressured by a silly little cartoon. > They are confusing somethings when compares sexual discrimination > with any other kind of. Be a women is not a religion choice and is > not a the same thing than choose a Desktop Manager. You are > argumenting against equality. I'm a women but I have the same rights > you have. Can you understand that? Is equality and self image so fragile as to be threatened by nude cartoons? Me, i am not sure I feel threatened by the gay porn, femdom, and transgender pornography out there. I prefer to let people do whatever turns them on in the privacy of their homes, as long as I am not forced to participate. I have no interest forcing my mores down other peoples throats. (Indeed, if our users want to see porn, should we not be facilitating this use of the machine?) > "It is also the type of discussion that deterred me from becoming > involved in Debian for some time." In that case, I am glad this has come up early enough so people know the nature of the beast they are trying to be a part of. manoj -- Trap full -- please empty. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:03:18 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:54:12AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > If our goal is to advance the cause of a Free operating system, >> > then why should we be including, in our OPERATING SYSTEM, images >> > that serve no useful purpose, and instead alienate millions or >> > billions of people >> >> I agree with this and is why I was suggesting that someone draft up >> some language which outlines, for the benefit of our users, things >> they're not likely to find in Debian. I suppose that might end up >> being too difficult but I think it'd be good to have some criteria >> for packages to pass in order to be accepted which includes issues >> like these and is clear enough that our users understand it. > Indeed, and this is also why Manoj's vi/KDE argument is not > relevant. > vi serves a useful purpose for an operating system. > Porn/nudes/whatever don't. A CPU monitor does. How the load is displayed, line graph, dancing bars, color changes, morphing pictures, is a preference issue. manoj -- strategy, n.: A comprehensive plan of inaction. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:47:45 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:28:20PM -0200, Fernanda Giroleti Weiden wrote: >> "It is also the type of discussion that deterred me from becoming >> involved in Debian for some time." >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2004/12/msg00011.html > Indeed, and in addition to the powerful legal arguments, this is > another powerful argument. > If our goal is to advance the cause of a Free operating system, then > why should we be including, in our OPERATING SYSTEM, images that > serve no useful purpose, and instead alienate millions or billions > of people worldwide? porn serves no useful purpose? What planet are you living on? 60% of internet traffic is porn related, they tell me. Sexual fantacy and release are an integral part of the psyche, especially in this modern world where lots of people postpone child rearing and procreation. > How does this advance our stated priorities: our users and Free > Software? If our users fit the norm for homo sapiens, then viewing porn is a significant activity for a largish subset of our users. Why should we not be facilitating that? > Does anyone seriously think that we are being a disservice to users > because we don't have porn integrated into the operating system? Umm, not really. There apparently is so much pr0n out there, and fresh pron at that, that packageed porn would rapidly pall against fresh meat on the net. > Does anyone seriously think that including these particular images > would be such an overwhelming benefit? I think theyhave as much benefit as vi, yes. Not much, personally, but I can see why some users can find them to be of merit. > Regardless of our personal opinions on this particular question, the > fact remains that it is deeply offensive to many people. This is Sure. Purity was deeply offensive to many people as well. Then, as now, the argument went that the right not to be offended is not a very valuable freedom. > not the right way to show people that Free Software is the way to > go. By all means, let's be open and inclusive and accept Free > software from everywhere and users from everywhere. But at the same > time, we don't have to accept images from everywhere nor any > developer that knocks at our door. Oh, only free software when it fits my narrow morality. > This is not our fight. Let's fight for Free Software, and let > others battle this one out. Free software is about freedom of expression -- and freedom to use software one can control for activities one pursues. Why should the endeavour of viewing pornography legally be discriminated against? manoj -- Scenery is here, wish you were beautiful. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:54:12 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > * John Goerzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:28:20PM -0200, Fernanda Giroleti Weiden wrote: >> > "It is also the type of discussion that deterred me from becoming >> > involved in Debian for some time." >> > >> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2004/12/msg00011.html >> >> If our goal is to advance the cause of a Free operating system, >> then why should we be including, in our OPERATING SYSTEM, images >> that serve no useful purpose, and instead alienate millions or >> billions of people worldwide? How does this advance our stated >> priorities: our users and Free Software? Does anyone seriously >> think that we are being a disservice to users because we don't have >> porn integrated into the operating system? Does anyone seriously >> think that including these particular images would be such an >> overwhelming benefit? > I agree with this and is why I was suggesting that someone draft up > some language which outlines, for the benefit of our users, things > they're not likely to find in Debian. I suppose that might end up > being too difficult but I think it'd be good to have some criteria > for packages to pass in order to be accepted which includes issues > like these and is clear enough that our users understand it. Guidelines? a) legal to distribute b) meets the dfsg c) scratches an itch you feel, and something you are willing to sign up to maintain and keep bug free. manoj -- Never trust anyone who says money is no object. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:02:48 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 03:36:50PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 04:06:13PM +, Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > I think that is the main issue here. I would like to believe >> > that Debian is capable of showing more respect for other people >> > than including hotbabe in the distribution would indicate. >> >> Yeah, i would like Debian to show more respect for me, by removing >> emacs and kde. >> >> Ah, the guy next door says he wants respect as well, and asks >> removal of vim and gnome. >> >> I'm pushing the thing to the absurd, but do you realise what you >> are saying is absolutely ridiculous ? > Really, you can't see any difference between kde and hot-babe? > Does NM include a half-a-clue check? Sure. Let us include an inquisition phase in NM that tests candidate DD's for moral pulchritude as well, and make sure they all practice RightThink. manoj -- I have never been one to sacrifice my appetite on the altar of appearance. A.M. Readyhough Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:49:06 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 11:21:03AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > Indeed, and this is also why Manoj's vi/KDE argument is not >> > relevant. >> >> > vi serves a useful purpose for an operating system. >> >> > Porn/nudes/whatever don't. >> >> A CPU monitor does. How the load is displayed, line graph, dancing >> bars, color changes, morphing pictures, is a preference issue. > Red herring. > Nobody objects to the CPU monitor itself. The objection lies with > the included image, not with the code. Remove that image and I > don't think there'd be any complaint. If the program works well, and depicts cpu usage, then the the image can change the aesthetics, not the utility. In my eyes, you have just blown all arguments of uselessness to smithereens. manoj -- A hundred years from now it is very likely that [of Twain's works] "The Jumping Frog" alone will be remembered. -- Harry Thurston Peck, January 1901. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:41:34 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> a) legal to distribute
> Where, and to who? You can't distribute something without being
> somewhere and distributing it to someone.
>> b) meets the dfsg
>> c) scratches an itch you feel, and something you are willing to
>>sign
>> up to maintain and keep bug free.
> Where do we specify these requirements for a package to be in
> Debian?
Umm, does everything need to come on a piece of paper
properly daubed with penguin pee?
> The Social Contract says Debian will not include software
> that has a set of legal restrictions on it and the DFSG says the
> license can't restrict distribution but neither seems to talk about
> the legality of distribution beyond licenses
And that is indeed the limit of restrictions on packages.
> When you're talking about 'controlled' things (cryptography,
> pornography, probably other stuff) there's more to it than just the
> license, at least in some places.
I think it is kinda assumed that we are not scofflaws,
breaking the laws of te land in which master and non-us live. Until
now, I had not imagined that such things had to be pointed out to
people.
> Additionally, personally I wouldn't be adverse to there being some
> additional requirements such that we remain focused on providing a
> good operating system as opposted to a general data distribution
> system for anything people want to distribute.
Yup. But first we must come up with proper definition of
RightThink.
manoj
--
signal(i, SIG_DFL); /* crunch, crunch, crunch */ --Larry Wall in
doarg.c from the perl source code
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:45:35 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:38:19 +, Will Newton >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 21:30, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> There are a number of locations where gambling is illegal, as >> >> are all games of chance. >> >> > That's "gambling" as in "wagering a stake on a game of cards" not >> > gambling as in "playing cards". >> >> >> Teaching kids to play poker will get you in trouble in quite a few >> places in Alabama, whether or not there is money on the table. > Evidence? Or hearsay? Well, as much evidence as there is that hot-babe is illegal, I would say. manoj -- If it's worth hacking on well, it's worth hacking on for money. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:47:32 -0600, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:26:26PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Nobody objects to the CPU monitor itself. The objection lies
>> > with the included image, not with the code. Remove that image
>> > and I don't think there'd be any complaint.
>>
>> If the program works well, and depicts cpu usage, then the the
>> image can change the aesthetics, not the utility. In my eyes, you
>> have just blown all arguments of uselessness to smithereens.
> No, it appears you have just supported it.
For people lacking logic, perhaps.
> If you contend that the image has no impact on the utility, then let
> us just replace the image and be done with it.
Sure. create all the alternative packages you want. Same
utility. You just do not get to impose your aesthetics and mores on
other people.
> Or do you claim that aesthetics has no utliity?
Orthogonal, really. Things can be useful and butt ugly. Or
they can be pretty and useless. Aesthetics does play marginally into
whether I use a program, but not often.
manoj
--
That which is not good for the swarm, neither is it good for the bee.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:02:24 +1100, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>>>>> "David" == David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: David> Worried parents should realise, that if their kids are old > Worried parents, like it or not, have already caused laws to be > created in some countries that limit the distribution of certain > materials to minors. > ...including USA, where master is currently located. > These laws were created for a reason, this reason was judged to be a > good reason (although people may disagree) and I don't think we > should blindly going about breaking them just because we can or just > because we disagree. No one is advocating Debian be a scofflaw. > (However, the material in question on this thread may or may not be > illegal). Quite. And if material objectionable to children is under discussion, there is alot of language in the linux kernel like what caused Stern to be fined millions of dollars. It is certainly not PG-13, and you can't just hjand stuff containing such language to underage children. Shall we throw all kerel sources and related material out of main as well? manoj -- I'm Batman. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:17:43 +, Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thursday 02 Dec 2004 07:50, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > No. We are talking about "distributing" hot-babe. Debian never >> > has and probably never will distribute "teh Intarnet". We cannot >> > stop people doing anything with Debian that is within license >> > terms once it is installed, but we can be held responsible for >> > what we distribute. >> >> Yup. We also distribute purity-ogg. fortunes-off, and the bible. > Which are illegal where? Umm, the linux kernel, the purity tests, and the offensive fortunes are not G rated, so can't be given to minors without parental consent. I guess that makes it illegal in the united states. The Bible is illegal to distribute in the most populous nation in the world. manoj -- The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland"; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:39:47 -0500, William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 04:22:29PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: >> Except Debian contains no Vaishnava texts nor is anyone trying to >> introduce them. > Of course Manoj complained about the Bible in Debian, but he > specically used the phrase "false gods", at which point I felt it > necessary to say that > Jesus-as-an-incarnation-of-a-magical-being-on-this-planet is exactly > as true or false as > Krishna-as-an-incarnation-of-a-magical-being-on-this-planet. You have a basis for this rather large leap? > The Bible's in there because some people like it. The Bible should > be in Debian. But the Koran, the Torah, and the Vishnu texts (name > escapes me at the moment) should all be in there too. > They're all equally true or equally false. Why? Why should one not be true and the others false? Why can't there really be one true religion? manoj -- Seeing danger where there is no danger, and not seeing danger where there is, by holding to wrong views people go to a bad rebirth. 317 Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:43:56 -0500, William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:57:42PM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: >> > Krishna is Jesus, dumbass. >> No He isn't. dumbass. > http://www.krishna.com/newsite/main.php?id=324 quote: Trying to > prove that Krishna is God presents a similar challenge. Someone > might ask, "If Krishna is God, why doesn't He come and prove it?" > Well, there's evidence that He does come. For example, when He came > five thousand years ago, millions of eyewitnesses saw Him, He did > things only God can do, and Vyasadeva, a reporter with impeccable > credentials, kept track of it all. endquote > Krishna is an advocation of false gods, exactly as is Jesus and Umm, I failed to follow this leap of illogic. If one text is wrong, all other texts are wrong too? > should be equally offensive to Manoj for the exact same reasons. > Using Manoj's own reasoning both are false made up stories > proporting to describe a visitation by a magical being in this plane > of existence. > Or, both actually *are* God a magical being who visited this plane > of existence. Either way, Krishna "is" Jesus. So, if one statement is true, all other statements are true? It must be fascinating to live in your world. manoj -- Do not think by infection, catching an opinion like a cold. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:17:05 +1100, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> Anybody who can't obtain porn using only the tools provided on
Andrew> a Debian CD is a total moron. You might as well complain that
Andrew> the internet is bad, just because it's primarily used as a
Andrew> vehicle for delivering porn.
> Not my point.
> My point was for somebody thinking along the lines: "I want to
> distribute Debian to this target audience but I don't want to risk
> upsetting anybody or risk getting arrested and I don't want to have
> to do it in secret". -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, remember to exclude the Linux kernel, then. It is
certainly not minor friendly.
manoj
--
All people are born alike -- except Republicans and Democrats. Groucho
Marx
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:43:19 -0500, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:02:24 +1100, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >> > (However, the material in question on this thread may or may not >> > be illegal). >> >> Quite. And if material objectionable to children is under >> discussion, there is alot of language in the linux kernel like what >> caused Stern to be fined millions of dollars. It is certainly not >> PG-13, and you can't just hjand stuff containing such language to >> underage children. > Stern, from my understanding, was broadcasting such language on the > public airwaves. Do you have an example of a company being > prosecuted for distributing CDs, or providing access over the > internet which contains such content, to minors? No, but I have no such data for companies giving out CD's with programs like hot-babe either. In my eyes, one is as likely as the other, they are both offensive material unsuited for minors. > I have to admit that I wasn't very successful finding examples of > website owners being prosecuted for distributing pornogrophy. I'm It is big business, from all reports. > guessing I wasn't looking in the right places or perhaps they just > tend to be threatened since I know there have been changes in that > industry (click-through age statements and whatnot) over the past > couple years. But there are quite a lot of unsuitable material even before asking for credit cards for proof of age or even a simple click through (what 13 year old would be stopped by that? I sure as heck would not have when I was younger) manoj -- Lieberman's Law: Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- (abusive?) erotic images in Debian
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:12:19 -0800, Martin Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I have not seen this image thus I do not if I would find it > offensive or not. Could someone please upload a .png of it somewhere > and post the URL? > My present view is that any packet that carries a strong > controversial message in the eyes of a significant portion of the > users and which is not directly needed in the core distro should be > provided as a separate download. In this case the image but not the > utility should come as a separate download. Oh, cool, there go vi and emacs. manoj -- Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time allotted it. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 00:20:32 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 06:11:56PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:17:05 +1100, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >> > My point was for somebody thinking along the lines: "I want to >> > distribute Debian to this target audience but I don't want to >> > risk upsetting anybody or risk getting arrested and I don't want >> > to have to do it in secret". -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Well, remember to exclude the Linux kernel, then. It is certainly >> not minor friendly. > Consider intent. The linux kernel source code intends to be (a) > compilable and also useful as Hot babe is also intrended to be useful, and display CPU load. The intent is systems monitoring. > (b) educational. As a side-effect, it contains swearing. As a side effect, hot-babe contains Bruno Bellamy art. > hot-babe exists only to display images, presently of naked women. > Hence the name. You have no clue what you are discussion. The primnary intent is CPU monitoring, the side effect is to display Bruno Bellamy artwork. manoj -- You had mail. Paul read it, so ask him what it said. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:20:00 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 17:53 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:45:35 -0600, Ron Johnson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 17:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:38:19 +, Will Newton >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> >> >> > On Wednesday 01 Dec 2004 21:30, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> >> There are a number of locations where gambling is illegal, as >> >> >> are all games of chance. >> >> >> >> > That's "gambling" as in "wagering a stake on a game of cards" >> >> > not gambling as in "playing cards". >> >> >> >> >> >> Teaching kids to play poker will get you in trouble in quite a >> >> few places in Alabama, whether or not there is money on the >> >> table. >> >> > Evidence? Or hearsay? >> >> >> Well, as much evidence as there is that hot-babe is illegal, I >> would say. > I showed you case law. You give me, well, nothing. You showed us case law that demolished your argument, yes. manoj -- I love children. Especially when they cry -- for then someone takes them away. Nancy Mitford Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 05:55:18 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Personal taste? No. > Opinion about what the law states? Yes. Mere opinions about the law by laymen carry little weight. Do you have any concrete evidence that actually proves (rather than demolishes) your argument? manoj -- "I got rid of my husband. The cat was allergic." Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:49:08 -0500, William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:28:14PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >> might want, and put it on non-us since it is illegal to distribute >> such things in the USA (and unlike the possibility of offending >> people's sensibilities, THIS is a real issue as things stand). >> While at it, we > They have had quite a few major busts of child pornographers in > Europe and also Asia. Europe doesn't tolerate *everything*. Kinda irrelevant. I don't see them shutting down the Louvre. manoj -- QOTD: "What I like most about myself is that I'm so understanding when I mess things up." Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Questionable image process. Was: Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- (abusive?) erotic images in Debian
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:31:03 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > David Weinehall wrote: >> The ITP contains a link to the source for the package. >> >> You *really* need to have a look at the pictures. All of your >> argumentation below about pron neatly goes *wooosh*. >> > I'll take your word. However, we seem to be lacking some process > here. I don't have a guideline at hand regarding what can and can > not be distributed to minors, with impunity, in various > places. That would be pictures of women displaying hair, or perhaps even images of living things. Are we sure we want to tolerate such parochial intolerance? manoj -- GIVE UP Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:28:14 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sun, 05 Dec 2004, Nick Sillik wrote: >> On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 16:22 +0100, Paul Plop wrote: >> > A flower may not be a good idea. For many specialists, a flower >> > is a phallic representation. I could hurt some people's >> > sensibility. > This is pointless. > Let's just have hot-babe with as much nudity/porn/whatever as the > maintainer might want, and put it on non-us since it is illegal to > distribute such things in the USA (and unlike the possibility of > offending people's sensibilities, THIS is a real issue as things > stand). While at it, we should also move anything else that the USA > law could classify as a reason to bust Debian/SPI people in jail, to > non-us. There isn't much of it, I hope. Umm, only if it is indeed deemed to be illegal. So far, there has been just FUD about this issue. I am not sure that artistic work qualifies as porn, which seems to be the case here. manoj -- Democrats give their worn-out clothes to those less fortunate. Republicans wear theirs. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:32:29 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 19:24 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > There's a *fundamental* difference between "don't want hot-babe >> > in Debian" and "don't want hot-babe to *exist*". >> >> Currently, the procedures for the inclusion of packages in Debian >> allow each developer to decide what to package, provided the >> licenses permit distribution. > Yes, I know. AFAICT, the only way for h-b to not be in Debian would > be if Thibaut VARENE, who filed the original ITP, decided not to > submit the package to Debian. That shall not work, since if the ITP is not followed upon, other people may chose to put the package in Debian. ITP's can be hijacked if the original author does not follow through. manoj -- NEWARK has been REZONED!! DES MOINES has been REZONED!! Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:50:25 -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 15:07 +, Andrew Suffield 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.
>>
>> You evidently have chosen not to do it. That's not
>> censorship. You're presumably also trying to tell somebody else not
>> to do it. That's censorship.
> Then the DFSG is censorship, and newspaper editors are censors.
> Be real, man. Steve Greenland said it perfectly: "Choosing not to
> distribute a given package is NOT censorship. ... This is not a
> subtle difference."
You choose not to put such a thing in Debian, your choice. You
tell me that something I have worked upon, is legal, and free, and my
work can't be put into debian because of your narrow morality, then
it is indeed censorship.
manoj
--
What kind of sordid business are you on now? I mean, man, whither
goest thou? Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny car in the
night? -- Jack Kerouac
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
