On 2023-08-21 11:43:04 -0700 (-0700), Steve Langasek wrote: [...] > Don't you think it's a bit hyperbolic to equate "not distributing > a text in our archive" to "book burning"?
Removing a package from the archive purely on the grounds that it contains objectionable text, if such is the reason for not distributing it, is making a value judgement of that text. The concerns that have been raised so far for objecting to the content of the package in question are applicable to quite a number of other packages in Debian as well. Hyperbolic perhaps, but it doesn't seem that far separated as analogies go. Maybe book banning rather than book burning is more familiar to modern audiences? In the country where I reside, libraries are pressured not to carry books that vocal members of the community find offensive for whatever reason, and those libraries often cave to the pressure because it's easier than explaining to pitchfork-carrying mobs that not every book in the library is going to be to their tastes. Removing a package from the archive because there's nobody interested in maintaining it (not merely expressing an interest but actually doing the work), is another matter of course. Like a library choosing not to repurchase a particular damaged book due to lack of popularity, rather than being pressed to remove it from the shelves because someone disagrees with what's printed inside even though they're never going to check it out and read it for themselves anyway. -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
