From a technical perspective, XLibre appears to offer several
contributions:
- Long-term support for X server as legacy X implementations lose
maintenance
- Continued security patches for X11-dependent environments
- Support for users who rely on remote X applications, specific window
managers, or accessibility workflows that aren't fully addressed by
Wayland
- Maintained compatibility for proprietary drivers where Wayland support
remains incomplete
What is Debian's criteria for package inclusion? I'd suggest Debian
evaluates the software separately from the maintainer's personal views.
Many successful FOSS projects have contributors with diverse political
perspectives, and Debian has historically emphasized technical merit and
community benefit.
If Debian is concerned about working relationships, it could establish
clear technical collaboration boundaries while still making useful
software available to users who need it. Excluding technically sound
software based on a maintainer's unrelated public statements sets a
precedent that could fragment the FOSS ecosystem.
What specific technical or community standards should guide package
inclusion decisions like this?
Aaron
On 2025-10-04 09:07, Alex wrote:
(…)
This shows to me that the XLibre main developer tries to spread
borderline unscientific stuff (that mRNA from vaccines somenow
finds its way into the cell's DNA) -- but doesn't qualify for
me (yet!) as Nazi. I'd be still a bit wary of working with them.
You can for example read these:
-
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20181010.110142.d4f30249.en.html
-
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20181010.120415.e5f96d11.en.html
I fail to see anyone in those two messages appearing as nazis (except
references to nazi Germany, historically). I do see someone whining
about CoC procedures being unfair/skewed/biased and personally I
disagree with that view.
As someone socialized in Germany I feel obliged to dispute the political
harmlessness of those messages. There is more to them than whining about
CoC procedures:
1. The attempt to portray allied bombings of German cities in WW2 as a
genocide is a neo-Nazi rallying point: German Neo-Fascists
coined/usurped the term ["Bombenholocaust"][1 [1]] to portray Germans as
victims rather than perpetrators of genocide.
2. The branding of ["Gleichschaltung"][2 [2]] as a leftist concept or
the
NSDAP as a leftist party is sinister cynism *at best*, but more likely
fascist doublespeak.
[1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(Begriff)#Bombenholocaust
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
Quoting from one of the mentioned posts:
Over here in Germany, anybody who talks about that, is automatically
declared 'Nazi' by the leftists
... because they typically are.
Links:
------
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(Begriff)#Bombenholocaust
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
