Alexander Ivanov <[email protected]> writes: > The upstream source code contains hidden geofenced/locale-fenced logic > that alters the application's behavior based on the user's language > settings. Specifically, if the user's locale is set to Russian ("ru"), > the application triggers a disguised visual element (Ukrainian flags > labeled as "EXTRATREE") with a significantly higher probability.
[...] > This targeted behavior strictly violates the following foundational Debian > principles: > 1. DFSG #5 (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups): The software > introduces distinct behavioral changes and targeted messaging aimed > specifically at users of a particular language/locale group. > 2. DFSG #6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor): The application > restricts or alters its intended neutral functionality based on the user's > environment. No, it does not. That's not what the DFSG means. I would let this go, but this is the second time in recent days that I've seen someone claim that the DFSG applies to situations that it clearly does not apply to, so it seems worth rebutting. The DFSG is about *licenses*, not about the behavior of the software. That's why every point (except #2, which is not relevant here) in the DFSG specifically begins with the words "the license" or "the rights," including the two that you cited (but cited while omitting those words). If the *license* does not discriminate, the DFSG doesn't apply. That does not mean that this sort of behavior is something that we necessarily want in the archive. I would, in general, say that software that behaves in deceptive ways, which includes hidden behavior changes based on usernames, locales, or other local settings or information that no user would reasonably expect to change behavior in this way is probably not something that we want to have in Debian. It's a very slippery slope and also likely to create a lot of drama to very little benefit. But tht doesn't make it a DFSG violation. Pulling the DFSG into these discussions is overreaching, and is also confusing since that's not the principle in play and that's not the part of Debian's policies and ethics that we should be discussing in cases like this. The DFSG and the Social Contract are not comprehensive lists of everything that we can possibly have an ethical position on, and it's neither necessary nor a good idea to try to tie every dispute in Debian back to one of those documents. It turns the conversation into rules lawyering without addressing the actual issue. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
