Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #14328 > unrolled thread

Re: Debian should not link to n*zis nor ship their software (Re: Debian Certified Laptops -- Possibility of collaborating with Framework?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Re: Debian should not link to n*zis nor ship their software (Re: Debian Certified Laptops -- Possibility of collaborating with Framework? Gerardo Ballabio <gerardo.ballabio@gmail.com> - 2026-05-15 10:30 +0200
    Re: Debian should not link to n*zis nor ship their software (Re: Debian Certified Laptops -- Possibility of collaborating with Framework? schorpp <thomas.schorpp@gmail.com> - 2026-05-15 12:00 +0200
      Re: Debian should not link to n*zis nor ship their software (Re: Debian Certified Laptops -- Possibility of collaborating with Framework? Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> - 2026-05-15 12:20 +0200
        Re: Debian should not link to n*zis nor ship their software (Re: Debian Certified Laptops -- Possibility of collaborating with Framework? Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2026-05-15 14:50 +0200
    Re: Debian should not link to n*zis nor ship their software (Re: Debian Certified Laptops -- Possibility of collaborating with Framework? Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2026-05-15 12:00 +0200

#14328 — Re: Debian should not link to n*zis nor ship their software (Re: Debian Certified Laptops -- Possibility of collaborating with Framework?

Matthias Geiger wrote:
> Well, the DFSG exits, we just don't have it mandating actions for packages (which IMO should be discussed).
>
> I'd like to point out §5 here [1].

DFSG §5 concerns the *license* of the program. "No Discrimination"
here means that the license must not restrict any person or group from
using, modifying and redistributing the program. It doesn't concern
discriminatory views held by the *authors* of the program.

About "mandating actions for packages", I understand that DFSG
violation bugs are RC. You aren't "forced" to do anything (see also
Constitution 2.1.1) but if you don't, your package won't be part of a
Debian stable release.
But this is not a case of DFSG violation.

Gerardo

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#14329

Am 15.05.26 um 09:52 schrieb Gerardo Ballabio:
> Matthias Geiger wrote:
>> Well, the DFSG exits, we just don't have it mandating actions for packages (which IMO should be discussed).
>>
>> I'd like to point out §5 here [1].
> 
> DFSG §5 concerns the *license* of the program. "No Discrimination"
> here means that the license must not restrict any person or group from
> using, modifying and redistributing the program. It doesn't concern
> discriminatory views held by the *authors* of the program.
> 
> About "mandating actions for packages", I understand that DFSG
> violation bugs are RC. You aren't "forced" to do anything (see also
> Constitution 2.1.1) but if you don't, your package won't be part of a
> Debian stable release.
> But this is not a case of DFSG violation.
> 
> Gerardo
> 

I second that.

It's been always the same for decades some guys show up with such 
requests to restrict free software

because they're unable to read American law English correctly and/or no 
law basics teached in their edu systems.

If Geiger wants to restrict GPL or DFSG he is free to create his 
own unfree software under his own restricted license.

y
tom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14331

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting schorpp (2026-05-15 11:02:17)
> Am 15.05.26 um 09:52 schrieb Gerardo Ballabio:
> > Matthias Geiger wrote:
> >> Well, the DFSG exits, we just don't have it mandating actions for packages (which IMO should be discussed).
> >>
> >> I'd like to point out §5 here [1].
> > 
> > DFSG §5 concerns the *license* of the program. "No Discrimination"
> > here means that the license must not restrict any person or group from
> > using, modifying and redistributing the program. It doesn't concern
> > discriminatory views held by the *authors* of the program.
> > 
> > About "mandating actions for packages", I understand that DFSG
> > violation bugs are RC. You aren't "forced" to do anything (see also
> > Constitution 2.1.1) but if you don't, your package won't be part of a
> > Debian stable release.
> > But this is not a case of DFSG violation.
> > 
> > Gerardo
> > 
> 
> I second that.
> 
> It's been always the same for decades some guys show up with such 
> requests to restrict free software
> 
> because they're unable to read American law English correctly and/or no 
> law basics teached in their edu systems.

This was mean. Your last paragraph does not add anything useful to this
discussion. You are just ranting.

> If Geiger wants to restrict GPL or DFSG he is free to create his 
> own unfree software under his own restricted license.

Yes, "no discrimination" means that I am allowed to use my GPL software on a
cruise missile guidance system if I want and copyright law will not stop me
from doing so.

But "no discrimination" does not mean that I *have* to ship cruise missile
guidance software in the operating system. Or white supremacist bullshit for
that matter.

So I think we can talk about policies we'd like to have in Debian about what we
want to ship and what not. We had similar discussions in the past when it was
about the fortunes package, we have these discussions when it comes to adult
content etc.

I'd welcome it if we could have more clear guidance about the content we want
to ship in our OS. If it were up to me, I'd immediately throw bs1770gain out of
the archive. But I also think that what we ship and do not ship should not be
up to arbitrary maintainer opinion. I'd be nice to have a guiding document.

Do other distros have something like that already?

Thanks!

cheers, josch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14332

Le Fri, May 15, 2026 at 12:08:36PM +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues a écrit :
> 
> So I think we can talk about policies we'd like to have in Debian about what we
> want to ship and what not.

Thanks!  By being concrete about what we can do, we ease the discussion and
the action.

For instance, "we should not link to the homepage" alone is obviously not a
good solution to the problem: packages without homepage attract people who want
to contribute to Debian by fixing the problem.  And we do not want to expose
them to racist propaganda.  Also, there is the "Streisand effect" to consider.

So we can:
 - replace the Homepage field of the package by a placeholder,
 - or by a link to our diversity statement,
 - or remove the Homepage field and add a lintian override to explain the
   reason.  Just "racism" is enough.
 - maybe other people have better ideas?

For the justification, anybody with a language model can verify themselves
without reading the text.  I tried with Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3-Q4_K_M.gguf
and llama.cpp on a Debian laptop; it works. (slowly)

Finally I would think twice about removing packages unless upstreams are
hostile to us.  For instance, I have started to screen all the homepages of our
packages and found at least another one with clear racist statemnts.  But I
forsee that going through each case one by one, each with their specificities
and divisive effects that will take time to heal if they heal at all, will be
excruciating.

Have a nice week-end,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy                         Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
Debian Med packaging team         http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tooting from home                  https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
- You  do not have  my permission  to use  this email  to train  an AI -

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14330

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 09:52:28AM +0200, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> But this is not a case of DFSG violation.
 
indeed, it however violates our Code of Conduct, our diversity
statement and also the general rule "don't be an asshole".

and you have choosen your side.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

Unpolitisch sein, heißt politisch zu sein, ohne es zu merken.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web