On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 14:38 +0200, Denis Leroy wrote: > On 05/19/2009 12:39 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > > I don't much like the reasons that we have to do it -- but I do agree > > that it's best just to stay out of the political debate by not shipping > > _any_ flags. > > Will you also stay out of the profanity debate and blacklist all > packages contains any textual occurrence of a profane word ? Or ship > them in a separate "-adult" subpackage ? This is completely ridiculous, > and the fact you are a member of FeSCO is plain scary. This can only be > excused by lack of time and/or interest to think about a better solution. I believe we do remove profanity where it's visible to the user, such as in fortune files. We also removed the 'random image' screensaver, didn't we? I don't really _approve_ of those changes, just as I don't really approve of removing flags. But it's not that I disagree with the Fedora decision -- it's more that I disagree with the screwed-up society which makes it necessary. I do reluctantly concede that it's the most appropriate decision for Fedora. As did an overwhelming majority of my colleagues on FESCo, iirc. > Worst of all, this "policy" is forced on us, without any sort of valid > legal reason for it, or even chance for discussion on the mailing list. I'm sorry if that impression was given. I thought we actually postponed the discussion and vote on it for a week so that it could get more visibility -- do I misremember that? And my understanding is that there _is_ a valid legal reason for it. Distributing Fedora in some countries is _illegal_ if it contains certain flags, and can lead to extremely uncomfortable repercussions. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
