On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 08:50:08PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > Helen Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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. > > First, I'm not saying that I personally feel that hotbabe should be > part of the Debian, but I think that hotbabe demonstrates a larger > issue. > > The problem is that Debian is about freedom of speech. If we start > dropping packages just because they are offensive to somebody, we are > compromising that ideal. Should we drop the Bible packages because > they are offensive to quite a few Islamists? Should we refuse to add a > Koran package as it is offensive to some Christians? Remove the > fortunes-off because it offends probably quite a large group of > people? > The Christian Bible ought to be OK by most Islamic scholars - it's the Crusader history that has caused most of the problems - but you shouldn't add a Koran. As I understand it, the Koran should not be translated as it is authoritative only when in Arabic as received by the Prophet (pbuh) but I may be very wrong here. It's worth remembering that Debian is a worldwide OS: to keep a sense of proportion, however, it's also worth remembering that no-one _has_ to install a bible-kjv, dhammapada, anarchism faq fortunes-off or the proposed hotbabe - it's not as if they are part of the base install. There is no imperative to package everything just because we can, however.
> Yes, hotbabe is sexist (at least in it's current incarnation - if it > included a male theme then it would only be sexually offensive to > some) and as such should probably be an extra priority package. Even > though we shouldn't exclude offensive packages we have the right to > make moral judgements and try to keep the higher priorities > content-neutral. > See endless flamewars in the archives, not least over a package called purity - a "purity test" and the related package purity-off. Or, indeed, over deity - which became APT precisely because of this sort of issue - dig up Bruce's posts from the archive and my compromise naming suggestion :) Moral judgments are a mine-field. [<OT> Any use of anti-personnel mines which injure non-combatants is entirely immoral and unjustifiable IMHO - mine-fields are immoral - but that is purely a personal opinion and doubtless there are others who will disagree </OT>] Respect is the cardinal principle here: no-one should seek to be gratuitously offensive/sexist/racist - but mutual respect goes both ways. People who are offended by <insert problem here> have a right to be offended but should also stand up for the right of <insert problem group here> to offend. If you want to be included in the world wide community, then you have to be inclusive to some degree. Debian can't include Nazi/neo-nazi symbology - because that causes problems in France/Germany - and should not include race hatred: one of the (very) few instances I can think of where the Project has taken a stand was when we removed posts from the mailing lists and archives which came from a (??Finnish??) extremist on precisely these grounds. Again, revisit the archives and see if you can find the interesting thread on "who is a typical Debian user" from a couple of years back. The breadth of users was amazing - _someone_ could potentially be problematic over almost any contentious point, but luckily few people push it. Andy