Martinx - ジェームズ <[email protected]> writes: > I think that last point matters as much as the others. The false choice > between “implement it” and “exclude users by jurisdiction” should be > rejected.
It's a good project to track this stuff for sure, i dont mean to discourage that but can you explain why this is a "false choice" and how debian can really "reject" it in practice. not implementing means users who want to follow the law are excluded. has anyone asked any users what they would like debian to do? eg do you mean - debian should decide the law doesnt apply to it - debian should accept the consequences of breaking laws it doesnt agree with - debian should choose to break laws it doesnt agree with - debian should encourage users to break a law - debian should encourage users who do not like a law to live somewhere with different lawss - debian should encourage users who not agree with a law to not use debian - debian should somehow get the law changed - something else? (and how will any of that happen in practice?) has anyone looked at the risks and consequences of not implementing something?
