> Different people have different concepts of morality. I believe it would > be better to remove anything that is controversial, for whatever reason > -- even if in *my* concept of morality there was nothing wrong with it.
The people who write code get to decide how they document it. If someone doesn't like it, don't have to use it. They can walk away. But above all, the principle is simple. If such persons use the software, they are BEYOND CRITICISM. Even the manual pages have a disclaimer that makes this clear: .\" THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR .\" IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES .\" OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. .\" IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, .\" INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT .\" NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, .\" DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY .\" THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT .\" (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF .\" THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Don't like it? Then walk away. To take this back to the original complaint, being critical of Bob's Charity at writing the software and documentation is UN-CHRISTIAN. Or is it? Is this some fake morality where your sensibilities override the original charity? The complaint is deeply offensive to any sense of right and wrong, in effectively every culture.
