dcarrera at digitaldistribution.com
Wed Jul 27 13:38:08 PDT 2005
Jonathan Leighton wrote:
> hmmm... I think this is actually a matter that should be discussed. From
> "We do not censor the content of the submissions"
> Now, I'm not saying that we *should* accept porn, but deleting it goes
> directly against that statement so one or other should be changed. We
> don't want to end up becoming a porn repository, of course, but there's
> tasteful nudity (Da Vinci etc.) and there's porn. We should make it
> clear that we won't accept the latter (I think everyone agrees on that),
> but perhaps we could accept the former with a "may offend" or "nudity"
> flag? Something like that?
> What thinketh the list?
I like the way Debian approached the Free Software Guidelines. They
relize the problem that no set of guidelines will ever be perfect. No
matter how hard you try, there will *always* be some way to dance around
the language or leverage a technicality or a definition. So, instead of
trying to make linguistically perfect guidelines, they make it clear
that these are *just* guidelines. Ultimately, the decision of whether
something is considered "Debian free" lies on the hands of the
Debian-legal list, and no ammount of hairsplitting over the guidelines
will change that.
Perhaps we should do something similar here. Make a "reasonable" set of
guidelines that will do well for 99% of the cases, and just say that it
is up to the project leads to interpret the guidelines. This way you can
write something reasonably simple like "we accept tasteful nudity, but
not porn" without having to worry about people arguing over the
definition of "tasteful" and "porn".
/\/`) Leave your mark at OpenOffice.org
/\/_/ OOoAuthors: http://oooauthors.org
\/_/ Knowledge Base: http://mindmeld.cybersite.com.au/
More information about the clipart