On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 10:31 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> > To be honest I really don't see what the problem is here. Content
> > which is illegal to distribute in pretty much any significant market
> > should be kept off the first CD, and proba
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Akamai is fully able to turn customers away, and has done so for various reasons (e.g. the customer is a spammer).
That's the key. And we had a posting from Joe Alewin that was most
informative on this topic.
For an example of a non-discriminatory mirror, consider the
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 04:48:24PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> A mirror operator in general /does/ make choices about the content
> carried on the mirror. The closest analogy that would already have been
> litigated is a Cable TV system. The U.S. FCC decided that
Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I could be wrong, but Debian is occasionally used and distributed by
> people outside the USA. Making any argument in this thread with
> reference solely to US law is irrelevant to the problems at hand.
I was answering a claim about US law; I was not the o
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 13:12:35 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Oh, and if we do not specify what the nature of what we package,
>> would it be easier to prove we merely carry packages? That would
>> really be nice.
>>
> I just do not see that we have th
On 8 Dec 2004, at 8:53 am, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The discussion about common carriers is all very interesting, but
irrelevant. There are many protections in American law, and common
carrier status is only one. We are certainly not responsible for
things which are not obscene, and the package
The discussion about common carriers is all very interesting, but
irrelevant. There are many protections in American law, and common
carrier status is only one. We are certainly not responsible for
things which are not obscene, and the package in question is not
obscene (b/c under US law a carto
Quoting Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> very strict regarding anything regarding Nazism.
s/Nazism/Crimes against Mankind (or whatever it should be properly
called in English...original version is "apologie de crimes contre
l'humanité")
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 02:36:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 11:41:42 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I don't think we have the slightest chance of proving to any court
> > that Debian is a common carrier, given the several inches of policy
> > manua
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 16:48 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > But that would not include any debian mirror, they would be common carrier?
> >
> A mirror operator in general does make choices about the content
> carried on the mirror. The closest analogy that would alre
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
But that would not include any debian mirror, they would be common carrier?
A mirror operator in general does make choices about the
content carried on the mirror. The closest analogy that would already
have been litigated is a Cable TV system. The U.S. FCC de
Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>>Oh, and if we do not specify what the nature of what we package, would it be
>>easier to prove we merely carry packages? That would really be nice.
>>
>
> A common carrier carries content from one external point to another as
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Oh, and if we do not specify what the nature of what we package, would it be
easier to prove we merely carry packages? That would really be nice.
A common carrier carries content from one external point to another as
directed by the parties exchanging the content without
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 11:41:42 -0800, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I don't think we have the slightest chance of proving to any court
> that Debian is a common carrier, given the several inches of policy
> manual that specify the nature of the content, etc.
Say what? Where is t
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Also, in much of the civilised world, once you start doing this you
suddenly acquire a legal responsibility to do it *right*, which you
wouldn't have had if you hadn't tried to do it.
It's more complicated than that. I think what you are talking about is
the fact that a c
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 10:10:19AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> I think it would be better to create a distribution of Debian, where
> applicable, that meets the legal requirements of the given country.
>
> That way if you do really want to distribute Debian where there are
> laws against XYZ, you ca
> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> Bad idea. Some countries have stupid laws and we should
Russell> not pander to them. There are laws against encryption
Russell> and against reverse engineering (which could get strace,
Russell> ltrace, and gdb)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 06:51:23PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Friday 03 December 2004 16:19, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 2) can not be sexist
>
> Bad idea. We should avoid subjective criteria.
>
> > 3) has to be able to be mir
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about you go off and create a distribution that panders to all the silly
> ideas. The rest of us will keep making Debian usable.
Um, I think Kevin Mark was making exactly this point.
Unfortunately, people try sarcasm all the time, and it falls fl
On Friday 03 December 2004 16:19, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 2) can not be sexist
Bad idea. We should avoid subjective criteria.
> 3) has to be able to be mirrored by all mirrors based on the laws of the
> location of the server
Bad idea. Some countries have stupid laws and we sh
On Friday 03 December 2004 06:19, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Hi fellow debianista,
> the package in question has not yet been accepted.
> For a pacakge to be accepted, here is conditions some have mentioned:
> 1) dfsg-free
IMHO the only requirement debian as a whole should care about.
> 3) has to be able
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The only other real condition is:
>
> 2) is acceptable to one of the ftp-masters.
>
> So ask one of them directly.
Agreed, and I think they've done a good job of it thusfar. That answer
seems, to me anyway, to be an insufficient answer
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi fellow debianista,
> the package in question has not yet been accepted.
> For a pacakge to be accepted, here is conditions some have mentioned:
> 1) dfsg-free
No non-free? But I guess you ment "accepted to main".
> 2) can not be sexist
Man is sexist,
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004, Kevin Mark wrote:
>> also, does anyone know of any other packages that never got in and the
>> reasons?
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 05:04:03AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> dvdcss code, and some other MPAA bait never did, I think.
Sounds like "Must not get Debian wi
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004, Kevin Mark wrote:
> 1) dfsg-free
Not a condition for acceptance in non-free. But then, that ain't Debian, so
your point stands.
> 2) can not be sexist
> 3) has to be able to be mirrored by all mirrors based on the laws of the
> location of the server
> 4) can not offend someo
Hi fellow debianista,
the package in question has not yet been accepted.
For a pacakge to be accepted, here is conditions some have mentioned:
1) dfsg-free
2) can not be sexist
3) has to be able to be mirrored by all mirrors based on the laws of the
location of the server
4) can not offend someone'
26 matches
Mail list logo
