Ron Johnson writes:
> On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 23:40 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [snip]
> > Well, I've changed my mind actually. An optional package called
> > 'hot-babe' is pretty harmless. The images are hardly pornography,
>
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 23:40 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip]
> Well, I've changed my mind actually. An optional package called
> 'hot-babe' is pretty harmless. The images are hardly pornography,
> though I certainly couldn't run
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The images are hardly pornography, though I certainly couldn't run
> it on my office PC (unless I was trying to get fired).
Heh, but frozen-bubble might be even better at that.
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041206 13:45]:
> Having said that, this package doesn't really advance Debian in any
> way. It won't gain us any users [...].
And that's the reason why I think it should not be included.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89F
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Is Debian a legal entity? The answer is unquestionably yes.
Where do you get these ideas? Debian is unquestionably not a legal
entity.
There is simply no way to avoid being one.
An unincorporated association is what your organization i
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:24:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:34:54PM +1100, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > >Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > >>It stri
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Seems more like there is a more of a minority of uber right
> wingers trying to batten down art that offends their sensibility. The
> actual project members seem to be more or less taking the sensible
> approach, in that t
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:34:54PM +1100, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
> >>violation of the Internet policies
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:01:15PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> The U. would err on the side of caution given the potential danger. If
> the "Hot Babe" package was being distributed from their facilities,
> they'd pull the plug. In order to appear to be proactive regarding
> harassing, offensive
Go away and don't come back until you have read the mailing list code
of conduct. I do not need a second copy of this entire sodding thread.
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:01:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Is Debian a legal entity? The answer is unquestionably yes.
Where do you get these ideas? De
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:38:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*.
>
> We do well to listen to what mirrors say, and what their concerns
> are. But we do not do well to guess at what
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:16:58AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:17:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my
> > history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want what's
> > best for the proje
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 23:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > No, that's not true. "reasonable person" (actually, they say
> > > "reasonable man") is a quite well-defined concept in American law.
> >
> > Is "reasonable man" the same in San Franci
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> >But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the
> >mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies.
> Certainly a good guess is better than nothing. Upon such a list it
> would b
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 11:42:15PM -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> >But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the
> >mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies.
> >
> >
> Certainly a good guess is b
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the
mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies.
Certainly a good guess is better than nothing. Upon such a list it
would be possible to err on the side of caution and al
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, that's not true. "reasonable person" (actually, they say
> > "reasonable man") is a quite well-defined concept in American law.
>
> Is "reasonable man" the same in San Francisco and Birmingham, AL?
Um, workplace harrasment cases are not the same a
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 02:04 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:24:19AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > A l
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Seems more like there is a more of a minority of uber right
> wingers trying to batten down art that offends their sensibility. The
> actual project members seem to be more or less taking the sensible
>
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 23:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Don't worry, that's not how hostile environment harassment law works.
> > > IIRC, it's based on a reasonable person test, and is extremely
> > > complex.
> >
> > It all depends on your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:24:19AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea...
> >
> > Keep in
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Don't worry, that's not how hostile environment harassment law works.
> > IIRC, it's based on a reasonable person test, and is extremely
> > complex.
>
> It all depends on your definition of "reasonable".
No, that's not true. "reasonable person" (ac
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:17:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my
> history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want what's
> best for the project.
I love how Debian has no sacred cows. It's one of the reasons I
stu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:07:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It shows that sexual harassment in the workplace is one of their big
> > concerns. And rightly so. Awards have been as large as $30
>
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:26:08 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> When invited to *reduce* uncertainty and doubt, by securing a
>> genuine legal opinion, you said it was Not Your Job.
>>
>>
> What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who b
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:44 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Seems like if the person being offended has the sole
> > discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well
> > hang up our keyboards and go home, cause anyone ca
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:31 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:37:41 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[snip]
> Seems like if the person being offended has the sole
> discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well
> hang up our keyboards
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seems like if the person being offended has the sole
> discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well
> hang up our keyboards and go home, cause anyone can be offended by
> anything.
Don't worry, that's not how hostile en
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:37:41 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>> It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
>>> violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or
>>> companies that host ou
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have not so far seen what you are going to tell the mirror operators
> so that they know what packages to reject. Surely you can not believe
> that they are all responsible to dig this information up on their
> own. That would be very unsympathetic towa
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:33 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*.
> >
> >
> I have not so far seen what you are going to tell the mirror operators
> so that they know what packages to reject. Surely you can not believ
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*.
We do well to listen to what mirrors say, and what their concerns
are. But we do not do well to guess at what they might say, on the
basis of half-understood and unsupported claims about what
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who believe
> that questionable content is desirable in the distribution, but they
> refuse to support themselves by doing the legal homework to support
> the content they desire. The entire project
Ron Johnson wrote:
That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*.
I have not so far seen what you are going to tell the mirror operators
so that they know what packages to reject. Surely you can not believe
that they are all responsible to dig this information up on their own.
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:38:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host
> > pornographic material.
> >
> > See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
When invited to *reduce* uncertainty and doubt, by securing a genuine
legal opinion, you said it was Not Your Job.
What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who believe
that questionable content is desirable in the distribution, but they
refuse to supp
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea...
>
> Keep in mind that Debian is not the U in question; Debian has no
> obligation to conform to some U's self-censorship policies.
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my
> history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want
> what's best for the project.
Sure; you want what's best, and you seem to think that what's best
right now is to make pe
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Good grief, this is one of the murkiest areas of American law, and you
think that anyone should be convinced of your FUD this way?
Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my
history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea...
Keep in mind that Debian is not the U in question; Debian has no
obligation to conform to some U's self-censorship policies.
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It shows that sexual harassment in the workplace is one of their big
> concerns. And rightly so. Awards have been as large as $30
> Million. And it embarasses the institution, which creates all sorts of
> havoc by driving people and even financial donors
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 21:42 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 8. Obscenity and Harassment: GW computing systems and services may
> > not be used in an obscene, harassing or otherwise improper manner.
> > GW computing systems and services
The telling part of the GWU policy is:
This provision explicitly prohibits any behavior that is
intended to or has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment because of an individual's sex, race,
color, religion, national origin, age, pregnancy, sexual orientation
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 8. Obscenity and Harassment: GW computing systems and services may
> not be used in an obscene, harassing or otherwise improper manner.
> GW computing systems and services shall not be used in a manner that
> discriminates against another
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host
> pornographic material.
>
> See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
Upon reading this carefully, it says that the Australian Government
may order the suppres
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host
> pornographic material.
>
> See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
Do we have evidence--actual evidence--that this provision applies to
cartoons? Keep in m
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies
that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws.
Can you please provide some concrete evidence of thi
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
>>violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies
>>that host our mirrors, as well as the applicabl
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a
> > given package, it is your responsibility to substantiate your
> > claim beyond raising FUD.
> I doubt it will be the last questionable package that is
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a given package,
it is your responsibility to substantiate your claim beyond raising FUD.
I doubt it will be the last questionable package that is submitted, and
would like to handle the issue before the nex
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
> violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies
> that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws.
Can you please provide some concrete evidence of this
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. An unincorporated association that has a contractual relationship
> with a public-benefit corporation.
> 2. A division of a public-benefit corporation.
Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a given
package, it is your responsi
Andrew Suffield wrote:
The project does not exist as a legal entity.
It's more complicated than you think.
Is Debian a legal entity? The answer is unquestionably yes. The only
question is what kind of legal entity it is. The most likely two are:
1. An unincorporated association that has a contrac
53 matches
Mail list logo