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, > > though I certainly couldn't run it on my office PC (unless I was > > trying to get fired). > > Why would you get fired for displaying "hardly pornographic" images > on your PC? > > Oh, yeah, that's right: sexual harassment, uncomfortable workplace, > fear of lawsuits, blah, blah. > > Thanks, Hamish, for helping to make our point.
There are lots of things in Debian that would violate workplace rules at some workplace (or at many): offensive fortunes, games, software that the IT department has not approved or does not track, and so forth. None of that is relevant to whether someone is exposed to criminal liability or liable for actual damages for distributing a package like hot-babe. Michael Poole
