Daniel Pocock <dan...@pocock.com.au> writes: > On 12/03/14 18:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:04:13AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>>> quick glance over debian-legal at Gmane didn't show any obvious >>> megathreads). >> I don't know why gmane doesn't show it. >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/ > This summarizes it: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/msg00024.html I don't believe Debian is the right place or mechanism to pick this fight. I think it would be a huge distraction from the point of the project, for basically exactly the reasons spelled out here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/03/msg00056.html and we should pass on this particular package. I think it would be great to have other packages of the same software type but with different content in Debian. Just not this particular content profile, which should be handled by people who know what they're getting into, can focus on this specific type of collision between free speech and other social issues, and don't have other goals that would be put at risk by getting into the middle of this fight. The above is written very carefully to try to avoid expressing any opinion about the merits of the content itself. Please don't try to read an opinion on that into the above. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87eh275kd3....@windlord.stanford.edu
