Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod

From	Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.project, linux.debian.devel
Subject	Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
Date	2023-08-21 21:30 +0200
Message-ID	<H5irM-3seG-35@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <H4fcB-2NXm-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <H4fFE-2O7I-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <H5gJk-3r7q-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <H5h2G-3rdX-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <H5i8p-3rQW-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

On 2023-08-21 11:43:04 -0700 (-0700), Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> Don't you think it's a bit hyperbolic to equate "not distributing
> a text in our archive" to "book burning"?

Removing a package from the archive purely on the grounds that it
contains objectionable text, if such is the reason for not
distributing it, is making a value judgement of that text. The
concerns that have been raised so far for objecting to the content
of the package in question are applicable to quite a number of other
packages in Debian as well. Hyperbolic perhaps, but it doesn't seem
that far separated as analogies go.

Maybe book banning rather than book burning is more familiar to
modern audiences? In the country where I reside, libraries are
pressured not to carry books that vocal members of the community
find offensive for whatever reason, and those libraries often cave
to the pressure because it's easier than explaining to
pitchfork-carrying mobs that not every book in the library is going
to be to their tastes.

Removing a package from the archive because there's nobody
interested in maintaining it (not merely expressing an interest but
actually doing the work), is another matter of course. Like a
library choosing not to repurchase a particular damaged book due to
lack of popularity, rather than being pressed to remove it from the
shelves because someone disagrees with what's printed inside even
though they're never going to check it out and read it for
themselves anyway.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

Thread

Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2023-08-18 23:30 +0200
  Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2023-08-19 00:00 +0200
    Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2023-08-19 03:40 +0200
    Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> - 2023-08-19 23:00 +0200
      Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2023-08-20 11:50 +0200
        Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> - 2023-08-20 18:00 +0200
    Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2023-08-21 20:10 +0200
      Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-08-21 21:10 +0200
        Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2023-08-21 21:30 +0200
          Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2023-08-21 22:00 +0200
    Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 20:10 +0200
  Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2023-08-19 00:50 +0200
  Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2023-08-19 01:00 +0200

csiph-web