Pornography may be offensive to some. Is the package description for hot-babe accurate? Are people who do not want it installed being forced to install it?
People who may be offended by the package should read its description and make up their own mind about whether or not they would like to install it. I'd like to also mention that censorship is very offensive, to me. I find it absolutely disgusting that some people think they have the right to control what I may view, or what gets included in media (Debian, in this case) that I use, due to their own beliefs. If they are offended by something, and they are not being forced to expose themselves to it, they have no good reason for complaint, and they especially shouldn't try to stop other people from viewing/using it. As for legal issues, there's so much software and so many packages in Debian, that it's more or less impossible to keep track of which packages violate which laws, and in which countries those laws apply. It'd be nice if that were possible, but it's not. I imagine most packages might violate some obscure law in some obscure country. Debian needs to stick to the laws of one major country, and perhaps provide packages that don't fit into that country's legal system as a separate source, if possible. I live in Australia, but I think that basing Debians decisions on US law is the most sensible option. Which packages should be allowed into Debian? All packages with a maintainer. This policy could lead to problems with Debian growing far too large. To solve that, I feel there should be some discussion on packages that might not be very useful to many people. If it is decided that they're probably not very useful, they should be put into a separate source, outside the main distribution, but still available for those that want them. There's no excuse for censorship, ever.
