> There are just two points in this flow, where > intentional (not as side effect of other considerations) efforts > (not including no-doing) to remove "inapropriate texts" can be > qualified otherwise: begin (author), and end (reader, user). All > other should be considered censorship.
So if you get a website, you'll happily put up all the racist screeds that are sent to you? > I, as user of Debian, do not want to audit each and every > package to be aware if package mantainer delete some essential > document he finds "inappropriate" for his beliefs. If you're paranoid like that, then you're out of luck. Debian's maintainers are under no obligation to include any document in their package, no matter what the outcome of this debate. util-linux's maintainer removed the program and documentation for generating sacred dates for the Discordian religion in one release. It was his choice, and even knowing about it, there is little anyone else can do about it besides appealing to the maintainer. > If manual author > is a honoured chairman of KKK - I want to know about this. If author > is activist of "legalize marijuana" movement - I also want to know > about this Again, what does that have to do with invariant sections? The author is under no obligation to add that to his manual. More importantly, just because it's part of the manual, doesn't mean anything -- it could have been part of the GNU Awk manual, and one section on regexes was taken to use in the Fortran 2052 manual written by totally different people. (Not that that would happen, because nobody is going to carry the invariant sections for that, but that's part of the problem of the GFDL.) ______________________________________________________________________ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
