Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@xxxxxxxxx) said: >> To reference my later point, I feel fairly comfortable >> saying that we're not going to be shipping default backgrounds consisting >> of naked people, or photographs of open surgical procedures, or overtly >> religious iconography, or any variety of things, even though we have no >> legal obligation to in that regard. Do we need an explicit policy on that >> too? (I'm sure someone will argue that we should go ahead and ship all >> those things if upstream includes them; I most assuredly do not agree.) >> > Oh definitely someone. Fpr instance, I disagree on some of your points > here. What if there was an open source reader integrated with content > for a specific format of medical textbook? That would be something we > ship despite having photography of surgical procedures in it. We > already ship sword and gnome-sword which is religious. So, since we > disagree, how do we resolve the impasse? Note the point where I said "default backgrounds". It's about including material that could be deemed controversial in places where it is not appropriate. In the majority of cases where flags are being used, it's really not appropriate. Part of me just finds it weird that it's now become a politcal cause célèbre to use high idealistic principles... to justify shipping bad UI to all our users and not having a policy to change it. But that's an entirely separate idealism vs pragmatism discussion. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
