The telling part of the GWU policy is:
This provision explicitly prohibits any behavior that is
intended to or has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment because of an individual's sex, race,
color, religion, national origin, age, pregnancy, sexual
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 21:42 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
8. Obscenity and Harassment: GW computing systems and services may
not be used in an obscene, harassing or otherwise improper manner.
GW computing systems and services shall
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It shows that sexual harassment in the workplace is one of their big
concerns. And rightly so. Awards have been as large as $30
Million. And it embarasses the institution, which creates all sorts of
havoc by driving people and even financial donors away.
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea...
Keep in mind that Debian is not the U in question; Debian has no
obligation to conform to some U's self-censorship policies.
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Good grief, this is one of the murkiest areas of American law, and you
think that anyone should be convinced of your FUD this way?
Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my
history I would hope that you could take for granted that I
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my
history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want
what's best for the project.
Sure; you want what's best, and you seem to think that what's best
right now is to make people
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea...
Keep in mind that Debian is not the U in question; Debian has no
obligation to conform to some U's self-censorship policies.
That's
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
When invited to *reduce* uncertainty and doubt, by securing a genuine
legal opinion, you said it was Not Your Job.
What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who believe
that questionable content is desirable in the distribution, but they
refuse to
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:38:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host
pornographic material.
See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
Ron Johnson wrote:
That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*.
I have not so far seen what you are going to tell the mirror operators
so that they know what packages to reject. Surely you can not believe
that they are all responsible to dig this information up on their own.
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who believe
that questionable content is desirable in the distribution, but they
refuse to support themselves by doing the legal homework to support
the content they desire. The entire project is
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*.
We do well to listen to what mirrors say, and what their concerns
are. But we do not do well to guess at what they might say, on the
basis of half-understood and unsupported claims about what
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:33 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*.
I have not so far seen what you are going to tell the mirror operators
so that they know what packages to reject. Surely you can not believe
that
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have not so far seen what you are going to tell the mirror operators
so that they know what packages to reject. Surely you can not believe
that they are all responsible to dig this information up on their
own. That would be very unsympathetic toward
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:37:41 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or
companies that host our mirrors,
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems like if the person being offended has the sole
discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well
hang up our keyboards and go home, cause anyone can be offended by
anything.
Don't worry, that's not how hostile
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 00:31 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:37:41 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
Seems like if the person being offended has the sole
discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well
hang up our keyboards and
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:44 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seems like if the person being offended has the sole
discretion about what is offensive, trhewn hell, we might as well
hang up our keyboards and go home, cause anyone can be
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:26:08 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
When invited to *reduce* uncertainty and doubt, by securing a
genuine legal opinion, you said it was Not Your Job.
What I continue to object to is that there is a minority who believe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:07:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It shows that sexual harassment in the workplace is one of their big
concerns. And rightly so. Awards have been as large as $30
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:17:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my
history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want what's
best for the project.
I love how Debian has no sacred cows. It's one of the reasons I
stuck
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't worry, that's not how hostile environment harassment law works.
IIRC, it's based on a reasonable person test, and is extremely
complex.
It all depends on your definition of reasonable.
No, that's not true. reasonable person (actually, they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:24:19AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A legal opinion on this matter would be a good idea...
Keep in mind that
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 23:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't worry, that's not how hostile environment harassment law works.
IIRC, it's based on a reasonable person test, and is extremely
complex.
It all depends on your definition of
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Seems more like there is a more of a minority of uber right
wingers trying to batten down art that offends their sensibility. The
actual project members seem to be more or less taking the sensible
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 02:04 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:24:19AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A legal opinion on
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, that's not true. reasonable person (actually, they say
reasonable man) is a quite well-defined concept in American law.
Is reasonable man the same in San Francisco and Birmingham, AL?
Um, workplace harrasment cases are not the same as obscenity
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the
mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies.
Certainly a good guess is better than nothing. Upon such a list it
would be possible to err on the side of caution and
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 11:42:15PM -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the
mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies.
Certainly a good guess is better than
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But it seems that now you're telling me that you know better than the
mirror operators which packages will violate their internal policies.
Certainly a good guess is better than nothing. Upon such a list it
would be
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 23:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, that's not true. reasonable person (actually, they say
reasonable man) is a quite well-defined concept in American law.
Is reasonable man the same in San Francisco and Birmingham,
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:16:58AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:17:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Would you please stop asserting that I'm out to FUD you? Given my
history I would hope that you could take for granted that I want what's
best for the project.
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:38:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's true. Debian doesn't *have* to be mirrored *anywhere*.
We do well to listen to what mirrors say, and what their concerns
are. But we do not do well to guess at what they
Go away and don't come back until you have read the mailing list code
of conduct. I do not need a second copy of this entire sodding thread.
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:01:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Is Debian a legal entity? The answer is unquestionably yes.
Where do you get these ideas?
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:01:15PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
The U. would err on the side of caution given the potential danger. If
the Hot Babe package was being distributed from their facilities,
they'd pull the plug. In order to appear to be proactive regarding
harassing, offensive, or
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:34:54PM +1100, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
violation of the Internet policies of most
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Seems more like there is a more of a minority of uber right
wingers trying to batten down art that offends their sensibility. The
actual project members seem to be more or less taking the sensible
approach, in that this
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:24:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:34:54PM +1100, Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It strikes me that some
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Is Debian a legal entity? The answer is unquestionably yes.
Where do you get these ideas? Debian is unquestionably not a legal
entity.
There is simply no way to avoid being one.
An unincorporated association is what your organization
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041206 13:45]:
Having said that, this package doesn't really advance Debian in any
way. It won't gain us any users [...].
And that's the reason why I think it should not be included.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The images are hardly pornography, though I certainly couldn't run
it on my office PC (unless I was trying to get fired).
Heh, but frozen-bubble might be even better at that.
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 23:40 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip]
Well, I've changed my mind actually. An optional package called
'hot-babe' is pretty harmless. The images are hardly pornography,
though I certainly couldn't run it
Ron Johnson writes:
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 23:40 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:11:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip]
Well, I've changed my mind actually. An optional package called
'hot-babe' is pretty harmless. The images are hardly pornography,
though
Andrew Suffield wrote:
The project does not exist as a legal entity.
It's more complicated than you think.
Is Debian a legal entity? The answer is unquestionably yes. The only
question is what kind of legal entity it is. The most likely two are:
1. An unincorporated association that has a
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. An unincorporated association that has a contractual relationship
with a public-benefit corporation.
2. A division of a public-benefit corporation.
Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a given
package, it is your
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies
that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws.
Can you please provide some concrete evidence of this
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a given package,
it is your responsibility to substantiate your claim beyond raising FUD.
I doubt it will be the last questionable package that is submitted, and
would like to handle the issue before the
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Either way, if you wish to claim there is a legal problem with a
given package, it is your responsibility to substantiate your
claim beyond raising FUD.
I doubt it will be the last questionable package that is submitted,
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:06:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies
that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It strikes me that some of the material in question would be in
violation of the Internet policies of most institutions or companies
that host our mirrors, as well as the applicable national laws.
Can you please provide some concrete evidence of
Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host
pornographic material.
See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
Do we have evidence--actual evidence--that this provision applies to
cartoons? Keep in mind
Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For one, the Australian laws prohibite any web site in Australia to host
pornographic material.
See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html
Upon reading this carefully, it says that the Australian Government
may order the suppression
Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
8. Obscenity and Harassment: GW computing systems and services may
not be used in an obscene, harassing or otherwise improper manner.
GW computing systems and services shall not be used in a manner that
discriminates against another
53 matches
Mail list logo
