Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 07:02:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > Firstly, much of this thread seems to be taken up by people saying that the > > project can't disallow things which we don't think reflect badly on debian > > but other people generally do. Why is this different? > > Huh? Do I understand right that you're asking me to justify others' > contributions to this thread?
No. I'm asking why this is any different. If we should protect our goodwill, then my concern is justified. > > Secondly, if any debian developers think sweatshop-sewn shirts of cotton > > subsidised by one of the world's richest countries reflect well on the > > project, > > The inverse of "reflects badly" is not "reflects well", it's "does not > reflect badly". If any debian developers think sweatshop-sewn shirts of subsidised cotton does not reflect badly on the project, that's disappointing and contrary to recent surveys in the news. Now, any got a reply to the substance rather than the language? Why should we protect goodwill in one narrow way while allowing it to slip away in another more widespread way? I believe gambling debian goodwill on our derivatives is less dangerous than the current gambling of debian goodwill on unethical merchandise. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]