On 05/28/2009 01:06 PM, Simon Wesp wrote:

Michael Flemingmfleming@thatfleminggent.com wrotes: MF> Hm. interesting case.

MF> I've got no problem with it. Unlike hot-babe there's nothing even MF> remotely resembling depiction here.

personally I am torn between 'go' and 'no-go'

the guidelines says: "Content must not be pornographic, or contain nudity, whether animated, simulated, or photographed. There are better places on the Internet to get porn."

my pro: this package is free of pornographic content. hotbabe isn't free of this content.

Why quote the guidline if it clearly doesn't apply in this case?

my contra: it helps you to get this stuff. An instigator for a murder is guilty like the murderer himself!

Murder is a crime, pornography isn't so this comparison doesn't make much sense. Also Firefox helps you to "get this stuff" too so if that's a reason for banning this package then you'd have to ban a lot of other software from Fedora too.

I don't see much of a controversy here. The package doesn't try to deceive anyone about it's intentions and doesn't contain any objectionable material itself.

Regards, Dennis

On 05/29/2009 01:35 PM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

in case you have accepted to put such packages in the repo

please maintain a wiki page listing all of them so that we can add exclude for all of them in fedora .repo files

sorry, but our users trust us [in ojuba.org spin] to provide packages that respect our family values and moralities

I suspect a list in the wiki would quickly become outdated. Might be worth adding a comps group if enough of them add up. Note this isn't really the first time. Other than some xscreensavers with fairly suggestive imageries, you also have things like these:

----

# yum search p0rn

Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, presto, refresh-packagekit, remove-with-leaves =================== Matched: p0rn ================================= p0rn-comfort.noarch : Support programs for browsing image-gallery sites

Rahul

I suspect a list in the wiki would quickly become outdated. Might be worth adding a comps group if enough of them add up.

The problem with a comps group is that it will lead to having a group in graphical installers saying "Adult packages" (or something like that).

Some might think of it as advertisement...

Regards,

----------

Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)

On 05/29/2009 02:40 PM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

The problem with a comps group is that it will lead to having a group in graphical installers

although in ojuba we use ourown comps files, but this is a catastrophe because they are merged! I guess there is an option for hidden groups

If you are talking about comps groups with the same name getting merged in the yum grouplist, you can control that via overwrite_groups=0. Since you run a derivative, you don't have to use the Fedora comps file at all but create your own.

Rahul

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 07:56 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

On 05/29/2009 02:10 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

...

The problem with a comps group is that it will lead to having a group in graphical installers

although in ojuba we use ourown comps files, but this is a catastrophe because they are merged! I guess there is an option for hidden groups

Have these packages:

Provides: policy(adult content)

And have a package that's mandatory in your respin that has:

Conflicts: policy(adult content)

/me taking one of the good ideas from the flag debate.

s/adult content/questionable content/

Simo.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:02:23AM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

...

On 05/29/2009 02:10 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

...

The problem with a comps group is that it will lead to having a group in graphical installers

although in ojuba we use ourown comps files, but this is a catastrophe because they are merged! I guess there is an option for hidden groups

Have these packages:

Provides: policy(adult content)

And have a package that's mandatory in your respin that has:

Conflicts: policy(adult content)

/me taking one of the good ideas from the flag debate.

Except it is obvious that something contains a flag or not.

Labeling certain content 'questionable' is going to end up being all over the distro and diluting the value of the tag.

Let me put it this way - if we start randomly rating things in a provides tag and gnaughty or hot-babe or pr0n-comfort get labeled this way then I'll make sure I personally add the same tag to:

• firefox
• yum
• sword
• gnome-sword

And every email client, because I'm spammed by countless messages offering adult content every day :-(

Daniel

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Simo Sorce ssorce@redhat.com wrote:

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 11:02 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:

...

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

...

On 05/29/2009 02:10 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

...

The problem with a comps group is that it will lead to having a group in graphical installers

although in ojuba we use ourown comps files, but this is a catastrophe because they are merged! I guess there is an option for hidden groups

Have these packages:

Provides: policy(adult content)

And have a package that's mandatory in your respin that has:

Conflicts: policy(adult content)

/me taking one of the good ideas from the flag debate.

Except it is obvious that something contains a flag or not.

Labeling certain content 'questionable' is going to end up being all over the distro and diluting the value of the tag.

Let me put it this way - if we start randomly rating things in a provides tag and gnaughty or hot-babe or pr0n-comfort get labeled this way then I'll make sure I personally add the same tag to:

• firefox
• yum
• sword
• gnome-sword

yum ?

it can be used to download/install packages with such content.

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

What about policy(shows skin) ?

yes b/c skin is clearly the medium of evil.

...

Let me put it this way - if we start randomly rating things in a provides tag and gnaughty or hot-babe or pr0n-comfort get labeled this way then I'll make sure I personally add the same tag to:

• firefox
• yum
• sword
• gnome-sword

sword and gnome-sword could certainly get policy(religious)

I can think of some more colorful things to label sword and gnome-sword - I'm sure that will be helpful and non-inflammatory :)

firefox could have: policy(the internet is for p0rn) and yum: policy(ad absurdium)

well, let's be clear - python is to blame, too.

and hell the name python is suggestive as well.

-sv

• yum

as I said I demand for a list even if it's with false positives

Couldn't it be the job of those who care to maintain this list in the

first place ?

no problem, just give me a procedural way other than watching all packages in pkgdb [so that I catch them before they are submitted to the repo]

my proposal is like this when someone wants to pack something for fedora and he himself or the upstream wants to tells us about it, then he knows how todo that and where to place his note

no more, no less, I have just wrote how do I think about that list

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InappropriateContents#Example

stop censorship conspiracy theory. I don't care what does the the law in US, UK, AU say I care about the little daughter of some brother in this universe.

law-makers in most countries think of holes then design their laws around the holes.

or some sort of power.

hmmm, I guess it's the power of friendship :-) seriously, I'm sorry, I did not meant it like that,

no problem, I request that whenever someone pack a package that he does not want his 8 years old daughter to add it to the list as I don't care for false positives like firefox or yum because yum does not read the wiki page.

Dr. Diesel wrote:

Demand, again, has he learned anything? This is ridiculous, somebody ban this guy.

That's just the language barrier. E.g. in French, "demander" is more like "request" than "demand". English is clearly not his first language, possibly not even his second language, I don't think he means what you think he means.

Kevin Kofler

* Muayyad AlSadi [29/05/2009 18:08] :

as I said I demand for a list even if it's with false positives

That's simple. Treat all packages in the repo as having inappropriate content.

Emmanuel

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 11:02 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:

• firefox
• yum

These are a bit rediculous and you know it. Neither of these come pre-configured to get to the content. You have to actively seek it out. gnaughty doesn't require that, it's hardwired to get you the content with no effort on your part.

• sword
• gnome-sword

On 05/29/2009 08:40 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:

we're on a silly slope and putting provides tags into certain pkgs is just plain dumb - wanna put a wiki page up - that's fine.

polluting provides tags is not a good plan.

Here's a proposal then:

Packages that some people in some cultures may have problems with can be tagged as such. Those tags can then be used by people who care to filter out packages they don't want to be visible.

These tags are to be created and attached to packages by users (including package maintainers as they use the packages too). Tags can be free-form and number of times a tag was selected for a package will be kept. Tags will be separate from the binary rpm files but will be associated with the packages.

It's up to depsolver authors to decide if the tags will be used in any way in their programs. It's up to people working on derived distributions/spins to decide how to use the available tags to filter the package set. No mandatory step for adding tags will be imposed for all package maintainers in the Packaging Guidelines.

-Toshio

On 05/29/2009 05:02 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

...

On 05/29/2009 02:10 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

...

The problem with a comps group is that it will lead to having a group in graphical installers

although in ojuba we use ourown comps files, but this is a catastrophe because they are merged! I guess there is an option for hidden groups

Have these packages:

Provides: policy(adult content)

And have a package that's mandatory in your respin that has:

Conflicts: policy(adult content)

/me taking one of the good ideas from the flag debate.

Except it is obvious that something contains a flag or not.

Labeling certain content 'questionable' is going to end up being all over the distro and diluting the value of the tag.

Let me put it this way - if we start randomly rating things in a provides tag and gnaughty or hot-babe or pr0n-comfort get labeled this way then I'll make sure I personally add the same tag to:

• firefox
• yum
• sword
• gnome-sword

So the reason you acted in a benevolent way in this community is only because it didn't give you an opening and the moment that happens you promise to attack it? While I'm in general agreement that censorship in any form is bad that's a pretty sad statement to make.

Regards, Dennis

On 05/29/2009 04:12 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

What are you trying to point out? It doesn't become clear to me. The name of the package you refer to might be a pun or a tongue-in-cheek reference, but other than that it's a set of tools (a proxy and tools) that can be used together with arbitrary image gallery web-sites [1]. Is the package name considered a problem already

I don't personally consider it as a problem but I don't know whether others would. The point is that there is no rigid line that applies to everyone if we want to argue exclusion of a package based on morals. The legal line - we trust Red Hat Legal on that. So there is less debate based on that.

Rahul

IMHO it is not Fedora's job to define family values & moralities. Such morals/values will vary all around the world

I don't want fedora to define such things, we have our own values predefined.

it should not make my job finding suck packages difficult we have more than 10,000 packages in the repos so don't expect me to test them all

the package maintainers already classify their packages using Group: in the spec file

and they already classify them in yum comps files

I demand a systematic way, a policy that tells a package maintainer how to categories their packages in a unified proper way to warn people like us from their packages.

On Viernes 29 Mayo 2009 11:38:21 Rahul Sundaram escribió:

On 05/29/2009 03:00 PM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

...

IMHO it is not Fedora's job to define family values & moralities. Such morals/values will vary all around the world

I don't want fedora to define such things, we have our own values predefined.

it should not make my job finding suck packages difficult we have more than 10,000 packages in the repos so don't expect me to test them all

the package maintainers already classify their packages using Group: in the spec file

and they already classify them in yum comps files

I demand a systematic way, a policy that tells a package maintainer how to categories their packages in a unified proper way to warn people like us from their packages.

The problem, how do we determine what is offensive to any particular group? Some people consider 3D shooter games offensive. This is slippery slope. Unless there is a legal issue, I believe Fedora is going to end up with that package. For a derivative, you have to pick and choose what you want.

+1

I don't like people who wants regulate everything because they think they are gods and they know what's good/bad for people. You, as administrator with root priviliges, you're the one who should say - this package is OK for my family, this is not... Same for TV regulations - you have remote, you're the best regulator!!! When I was young, my parents locked living room if they thought I have enough TV or there's something wrong they don't want to let me see. One month ago I've read interview with Czech broadcast regulation office boss and it was wonderful - he said - Internet never was intended as free/open medium, we have to regulate it (we is Europe Union) as companies broadcasting over Internet have advantage over that regulated. Isn't better to not regulate them instead of regulating Internet???

So please, prepare these packages, put them to the repository (not default in comps) - if there's good summary/description, it's admin/parent responsibility!

Jaroslav

Rahul

Where do you anything about "family values and moralities" in Fedora's mission statement? I see statements about software being free to use,

that's why I said us [in ojuba.org] as I'm member of both fedora and ojuba

but fedora shouln't make it difficult for us by design, it should give us the choice.

That said, if there are clearly identifiable class of programs that may be deemed offensive by a large set of people (and *not* governments), then it would be sensible to mark them so that people can consciously and *individually* decide to (not) install/remove them or use spins that explicitly exclude/include them.

+1

exactly, I did not ask fedora to remove or ban those things, I asked them to make it easy for us to choose

I wrote a proposal https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InappropriateContents

please help me make the proposal better before submitting it to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts

Dennis J. (dennisml@conversis.de) said:

...

I wrote a proposal https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InappropriateContents

I don't think you can just flag Packages as inappropriate because everyone has his own definition for that term. If you really want to make this work you'll have to create specific classifications like "nudity" or "violence" so people can make informed decisions. People might be ok with violent content but not nudity. When I see a Package marked only as "inappropriate" that doesn't help me to tell whether *I* would find that inappropriate or not.

At which point, you need some sort of review board, where then every package gets something like:

- TuxPaint is rated E for Everyone - quake3 is rated T for violent content - tcl is rated M for inappropriate language

I'm going to go out on a limb and claim we don't have the resources to coherently do this.

Bill

Dennis J. (dennisml@conversis.de) said:

...

At which point, you need some sort of review board, where then every package gets something like:

• TuxPaint is rated E for Everyone
• quake3 is rated T for violent content
• tcl is rated M for inappropriate language

I'm going to go out on a limb and claim we don't have the resources to coherently do this.

I don't see why we would need a review board. Just add a guideline asking packagers to tag their packages if they think the contents could be inappropriate out of courtesy toward their fellow community members.

If some packagers don't give a damn then that's fine and not a lot can be done about that but why not give the community the tools to self regulate?

Just because there is a general guideline does not mean there has to be enforcement through an iron-fisted review board.

Without some sort of standards, the tags would likely become meaningless to rely on in practice. (See also: the RPM Group tag.)

Bill

You're just transferring the work. In order to *generate* the list of tens of packages to make _your_ life easier, someone else has to inspect the tens of thousands of packages.

I forgot to mention that I'm not the only one who cares think of OLPC having a pre-installed something similar to gnaughty by default how would it appear after the "G for Gun" issue

some schools have fedora installed on their students desktops, I guess they too needs to know such packages. making each of them individually inspecting all packages is not an option.

However, you haven't proposed it as that; you seem to have proposed it as a packaging guideline.

in the beginning I did not proposed a packaging guideline but I was told to make it a packaging guideline proposal

I asked for a unified wiki page that packagers should know that it exists and they have the right to add to it.

There is no enforcement involved. If that proposal is too Difficult/complex to implement it can be rejected. If a packager is unwilling to put such a classification in his package then it's up to the people concerned to work it out.

it's a wiki page, if the packager was unwilling to put such classification then he have no right to stop the reviewer from editing the wiki page and if they both where unwilling to do so, they both have no right from stopping the first offended user from editing the wiki page, that's all. so I can't see when it can cause a package to be rejected.

what is allowed or not allowed because one can not assume that everyone thinks the same way

this is not about allowing or not allowing packages or content. It's about a place to know what packages that might be offensive or inappropriate and each group should expect this list to have false positives.

Also, others may have said this, but the word demand is a 'violent'

word in English. It intones harsh consequences if one's wants are not met and is one that causes fear and anger as a result. I am not sure you mean that.

I said I'm sorry. anyway some dictionary says < http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demand

to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary: This task demands patience. Justice demands objectivity.

and of course I feel that I asked for something that is just and proper and necessary. but I did not mean to force it.

I don't think you can just flag Packages as inappropriate because everyone has his own definition for that term. If you really want to make this work you'll have to create specific classifications like "nudity" or "violence" so people can make informed decisions. People might be ok with violent content but not nudity. When I see a Package marked only as "inappropriate" that doesn't help me to tell whether *I* would find that inappropriate or not.

we can use "might be" just like "be polite someone's grandma could be here" and we can list when and why and to whom

in the proposal I used the classification used by the upstream if any and I guess all of packages will fall under this. if the upstream says that his package is inappropriate then its worth listing and I guess this is the fedora way.

and if the maintainer or reviewer won't show those to his little daughter then it worth being listed

I don't demand more than that.

BTW: we have specific definitions for those terms but as I said I don't want to impose our definitions and values into fedora, our standards are so high that if something is bad according to any definition then it's bad for us :-) no I mean inspecting a list of tens of packages would be much simpler than inspecting all the tens of thousands of packages

You're just transferring the work. In order to *generate* the list of tens of packages to make _your_ life easier, someone else has to inspect the tens of thousands of packages.

and the someone else you refer to is fedora censorship board! no no like that, I asked for a unified place to put those things in the wiki if the maintainer decided that he does not want to add his package to the list we are not going to shoot him.

it's just an advice from a friend keep that in mind

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 09:58:10AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 19:49 +0300, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

...

You're just transferring the work. In order to *generate* the list of tens of packages to make _your_ life easier, someone else has to inspect the tens of thousands of packages.

and the someone else you refer to is fedora censorship board! no no like that, I asked for a unified place to put those things in the wiki if the maintainer decided that he does not want to add his package to the list we are not going to shoot him.

If all you want is a page on the Wiki for you and notional other people who are interested in excluding certain packages from their spins or whatever to co-ordinate on listing which packages might be an issue, then I don't think anyone would really object to that - all along we've been saying that it's fine for you to include or exclude whatever you like from your own spin on whatever grounds you choose, and this would just be a bit of organization to help you with that. I certainly wouldn't object to it.

However, you haven't proposed it as that; you seem to have proposed it as a packaging guideline. All packagers are supposed to respect packaging guidelines (we only don't call them 'rules' because we're trying to be all happy-clappy). If you really want this to be something that packagers don't have to worry about unless they actually care about it, then it shouldn't be a packaging guideline. You should just create it as a page on the Wiki with no official status in any procedure. I don't believe you need anyone's permission to do that, you can just go ahead and do it.

I will take blame for the packaging guideline. I suggested one be written based on what seemed to be a request to have this driven automatically for all packages.

If this is just a volunteer-only, totally optional wiki page then I also see no problem. If this is something to be mandated, then the guideline would be necessary.

josh

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 16:28 +0200, Dennis J. wrote:

On 05/29/2009 03:27 PM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

...

Where do you anything about "family values and moralities" in Fedora's mission statement? I see statements about software being free to use,

that's why I said us [in ojuba.org] as I'm member of both fedora and ojuba

but fedora shouln't make it difficult for us by design, it should give us the choice.

...

That said, if there are clearly identifiable class of programs that may be deemed offensive by a large set of people (and *not* governments), then it would be sensible to mark them so that people can consciously and *individually* decide to (not) install/remove them or use spins that explicitly exclude/include them.

+1

exactly, I did not ask fedora to remove or ban those things, I asked them to make it easy for us to choose

I wrote a proposal https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InappropriateContents

I don't think you can just flag Packages as inappropriate because everyone has his own definition for that term. If you really want to make this work you'll have to create specific classifications like "nudity" or "violence" so people can make informed decisions. People might be ok with violent content but not nudity. When I see a Package marked only as "inappropriate" that doesn't help me to tell whether *I* would find that inappropriate or not.

Oh what a delightful slippery slope ...

I'll give you a few examples: in some places a topless is considered totally unacceptable nudity, in others not so much, what definition do you use (there are subtler shades of course) ?

In some places a game with people firing at other people with red blood coming out and all is considered strongly violent, but firing at aliens with abstract shapes that have green blood not so much, for others firing at anything is considered violent, what definition do you use ?

For some people some language may be considered inappropriate for ""children"" of age 16, for others a 16 is not a child but simply a youth already capable of judging use of language, what do you choose ?

For some cultures eating a specific animal is considered an obscenity while for others it is a perfectly normal daily occurrence, do you choose to tag such content ?

Simo.

it's the job for those who care to check this list and take their own subset from it according to their own definition.

Couldn't it be the job of those who care to maintain this list in the first place ?

----------

Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)

We had a really long debate about this package in #fedora-devel yesterday and it basically boils down to

1) Need fedora-legal to check the legality of the app not verifying user's age and legality of the URL of the site being in the C source. 2) If fedora-legal say it is legal, then its up to the Board.

I don't see the point of spamming the list over this any further.

-Adam

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Seth Vidal skvidal@fedoraproject.org wrote:

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Adam Miller wrote:

...

We had a really long debate about this package in #fedora-devel yesterday and it basically boils down to

1. Need fedora-legal to check the legality of the app not verifying

user's age and legality of the URL of the site being in the C source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_Sta...

"On March 22, 2007, COPA was found to violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and was struck down."

In short - there is no valid law requiring age verification.

In the US ....

On 05/29/2009 08:03 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

as I said I don't want you to tag them I want you to limit the list for me from more than 10,000 package which increases at arbitrary time

to tens of packages on a wiki that I can //watch// (a feature of the wiki)

and regarding to your examples provided that they are already accepted in fedora <<EOQ In some places a game with people firing at other people with red blood coming out and all is considered strongly violent, but firing at aliens with abstract shapes that have green blood not so much, for others firing at anything is considered violent, what definition do you use ? EOQ

it's not important what is my definition the important thing is to have a place for those who care to look at and decide, yes different people will have different definitions so what ? if a package is placed in that wiki page this does not mean it's tagged banned or whatever it means that it might be inappropriate for some poeple it's the job for those who care to check this list and take their own subset from it according to their own definition.

Well... If you're going to argue along those lines then I'd also argue that it's up to those who care about restricting the package set to maintain the list. Because having package maintainers identify what might potentially be offensive to people in cultures widely removed from themselves and adding them to a non-binding, out-of-spec file list on the wiki is going to break down on so many levels.

If you want better tools to help the people who care about different sorts of offensive content maintain and generate such a list, we have something to talk about. But having "add something to a wiki list" become a Packaging Guideline is something I'll vote against. We're trying to move things like this (for instance, the retired package list) off of the wiki, not add more to it.

-Toshio

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

Very long thread deleted.

Could we all cool it a bit and think for a bit about the following questions

1. Does this discussion need to occur right before a release where

there are bigger problems to test/find. 2) Are we discussing anything. People are stating their points of view but its all a one-way discussion as no one is looking to change minds just beat the other side to the last post. 3) Don't we have release blockers to check?

I agree we have other things that need to be done.

The reason I'm arguing about this package (and others like it) is that I do not want us getting rid of software due to some provincial thoughts about what is or is not "appropriate".

But most importantly I don't want more oppression to win. I'm tired of it winning.

-sv

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:30:45PM +0300, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

IMHO it is not Fedora's job to define family values & moralities. Such morals/values will vary all around the world

I don't want fedora to define such things, we have our own values predefined.

it should not make my job finding suck packages difficult we have more than 10,000 packages in the repos so don't expect me to test them all

the package maintainers already classify their packages using Group: in the spec file

and they already classify them in yum comps files

I demand a systematic way, a policy that tells a package maintainer how to categories their packages in a unified proper way to warn people like us from their packages.

You can demand whatever you want, but that doesn't mean you will get it. If you want that, draft a proposal for the packaging guidelines and submit it.

Honestly, I agree with the view that it is not Fedora's place to classify packages in such a manner.

josh

On Fri, 29 May 2009 14:23:01 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

...

IMHO it is not Fedora's job to define family values & moralities. Such morals/values will vary all around the world, such that no single list Fedora makes would be satisfactory. If a derived spin wants to define a set of morals & values then the burden should be on them to maintain the list of packages that don't comply, not Fedora.

+1

    Kevin Kofler

+10.

Every culture - or even individual's - moral compass varies from others, even slightly. Trying to define morality for a large non-homogenous group is almost certainly going to upset a significant proportion of that group that don't agree with the definition, often with undesirable results - "it'll all end in tears" would be an appropriate English idiom; IOW doomed - just ask my (Australian) Communications Minister :-).

If you're going to maintain a spin for a like-minded community (like ojuba.org is) then the onus is on those maintainers to decide on and cull those packages that they deem inappropriate from their compose. For Fedora to do so would be outside our collective bailiwick (IMHO) and as Kevin correctly notes no single list would please everyone all of the time - I know some folks who may object to gnome-sword for example.

Michael.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Simo Sorce ssorce@redhat.com wrote:

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 10:20 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

...

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:05:01AM +0300, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

in case you have accepted to put such packages in the repo

please maintain a wiki page listing all of them so that we can add exclude for all of them in fedora .repo files

sorry, but our users trust us [in ojuba.org spin] to provide packages that respect our family values and moralities

IMHO it is not Fedora's job to  define family values & moralities. Such morals/values will vary all around the world, such that no single list Fedora makes would be satisfactory. If a derived spin wants to define a set of morals & values then the burden should be on them to maintain the list of packages that don't comply, not Fedora.

Let's also add the morality is the prime excuse for censorship in many countries. I can't count the amount of clearly censor-grade legislation has passed recently in just the western hemisphere with just the *excuse* of "defending children"* where in some cases stuff related to children was not even named in the text of the law, or if it were it was clearly preposterous and only there to justify the whole set of rules. Let alone countless other moral or religious precepts.

That said, if there are clearly identifiable class of programs that may be deemed offensive by a large set of people (and *not* governments), then it would be sensible to mark them so that people can consciously and *individually* decide to (not) install/remove them or use spins that explicitly exclude/include them.

Simo.

• Of course I am all for defending children, but totally against using a

highly sensible topic to shove in legislation that has nothing to do with protection them and all to do with censorship and control.

+1

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3d) < frankly3d@gmail.com> wrote:

Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

...

in case you have accepted to put such packages in the repo

please maintain a wiki page listing all of them so that we can add exclude for all of them in fedora .repo files

sorry, but our users trust us [in ojuba.org spin] to provide packages that respect our family values and moralities

As long as they are not installed by default, I don't see the problem.

If they do get installed, it would probably not be an accident. Whatever the moral\cultural situation

Frank

Yes! Use Firefox for example where you can end up on a "questionable site" by accident!

Any web browser/ftp/p2p/etc can be used to download images/movies, gnaughty is no different.

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 11:15 +0100, Frank Murphy (Frankly3d) wrote:

But I think morality it is delving away from fedora, unless it is global socially objectionable, maybe Child-Porn.

I see this is this week's merry train-wreck of a discussion, but I can't resist pointing out that even that isn't as clear-cut as you'd expect: in Japan you can perfectly easily buy manga depicting extremely young children having sex and just be thought of as a bit weird. (But just like in the grown-up versions, the actual...appendages have to be very minimally censored...*unlike* in most countries). Such things would technically be legal in probably most western countries, but very heavily frowned upon to say the least, and as a matter of practice, I don't think you can really buy them elsewhere.

To derive a more useful principle: there's almost no universal agreement on any issue of what's 'culturally', 'morally', 'ethically' or whatever acceptable, so it's effectively impossible for Fedora as a project to create an 'Objectionable Content' label and apply it in a way that's useful. If you are producing a spin for a group with sufficiently continguous views on such things, it falls to you and no-one else to ensure that the materials in your spin are appropriate for your audience. 'We' - the project as a whole - don't necessarily share or even fully understand your moral perspective, so you can't rely on us to do it for you.

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 09:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 11:15 +0100, Frank Murphy (Frankly3d) wrote:

...

But I think morality it is delving away from fedora, unless it is global socially objectionable, maybe Child-Porn.

I see this is this week's merry train-wreck of a discussion, but I can't resist pointing out that even that isn't as clear-cut as you'd expect: in Japan you can perfectly easily buy manga depicting extremely young children having sex and just be thought of as a bit weird. (But just like in the grown-up versions, the actual...appendages have to be very minimally censored...*unlike* in most countries). Such things would technically be legal in probably most western countries, but very heavily frowned upon to say the least, and as a matter of practice, I don't think you can really buy them elsewhere.

FYI: Here in the US a 30+ year old manga collector is waiting for a sentence that can put him in jail for up to 15 years because he had a few of those manga. He didn't concentrate on any specific genre, he had thousands of manga's of any kind, so it is clear that he is not a pedophile, yet apparently he's going to be sentenced for something very akin to a thought-crime.

My 2c just to reinforce the concept that what is acceptable or even criminal or not is extremely variable nation by nation.

To derive a more useful principle: there's almost no universal agreement on any issue of what's 'culturally', 'morally', 'ethically' or whatever acceptable, so it's effectively impossible for Fedora as a project to create an 'Objectionable Content' label and apply it in a way that's useful. If you are producing a spin for a group with sufficiently continguous views on such things, it falls to you and no-one else to ensure that the materials in your spin are appropriate for your audience. 'We' - the project as a whole - don't necessarily share or even fully understand your moral perspective, so you can't rely on us to do it for you.

I think this is the main point Muayyad should understand.

Muayyad, if you feel this sort of filtering is necessary then you simply can't trust others to do it. Even if they had any interest in doing it because they may simply not understand your moral boundaries, let alone share them.

Your best bet is to ask for help in your own community and come up with a method to allow your community members to tag packages, in a wiki associated to your spin, and then use those tags to build your package list.

This would make it much easier for you and for the Fedora project.

Simo.

So I'm afraid that in the end, you (and those who care) will be the ones maintaining such a list.

NP, how about calling that wiki page InappropriatePackagesAdvisory ?

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 22:22 +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:

Or even better: you can create your own spin / distribution with the packages you find detestable removed. Simply start from a minimal install and add only the packages you need.

You don't seem to have followed the discussion from the beginning. He is the maintainer of such a spin. What he seems to be looking for is a central reference point of convenience where people who maintain such spins can note down what packages are potentially troublesome for future reference.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:

Or even the mail client which happens to be called "Evolution".

I know for a fact that said mail client is a product of intelligent design...so that should take the edge of that particular debate.

-jef"nice threadjacking attempt, I salute you!"spaleta

On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 12:44 +0300, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

yes, English is not my first language, and law is not one of my interests, and for sure there exists a better phrasing of the page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InappropriateContents

but nobody have shown me a serious problem in that page

Yes, they have: there's no way there's going to be a Packaging Guideline on the matter (a Packaging Draft is a Packaging Guideline wanna-be / to-be).

If you want such a page just do it and don't try to make it an official guideline.

On Sat, 30 May 2009, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:

does the upstream web site for evolution carries a note that it's not suitable for certain group of users ? does the maintainers or reviewers see that it should ?

Read the lwn.net article about hot babe. The easily offended editor mentioned that the --color functionality of ls offends him and he wants it gone.

If a reviewer feels the same your page will be swamped with "bogus" reports of offending tools.

Or if another fedora user disagrees with a tool being flagged as "inappropriate", he might even remove the tool from the list.

am I the only one who knows that "if p then q" will evaluate to T when p=F

As you neither did define the relation of T or F to either p or q your "proof" is just a logical fallacy. I fear the same is true for your inappropriateness-rating. It's full of fail.

some one asked me to pay the rating fees for every package! other started to give me examples about different people having different opinions I consider all this is off-topic.

I think your missing the point. People pointing out problems with your approach are not off-topic. They are very much on-topic. Declaring their objections as off-topic doesn't make the underlying problem go away.

yes, English is not my first language, and law is not one of my interests, and for sure there exists a better phrasing of the page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InappropriateContents but nobody have shown me a serious problem in that page

Read the discussion, read the comment placed directly on the page.

I think the best way of solving your issue is to gather other people interested in your specific spin and generate a list of acceptable programs. Don't base it on any opinion a random fedora user might or might not have. Have the list on a page you directly control. This is especially important as any programm you might not flag correctly will reflect badly on your spin.

The wiki on fedoraproject.org is most likely not the right place for such a list.

You know the saying: Right tool for the right job.

regards, andreas

...

am I the only one who knows that "if p then q" will evaluate to T when p=F

As you neither did define the relation of T or F to either p or q your

"proof" is just a logical fallacy. I fear the same is true for your inappropriateness-rating. It's full of fail.

the statement was like this "if it was rated, if the upstream, if the maintainer feels ... -> add a comment"

if non of those happened, ie. it was not rated nor the upstream carries such note nor the maintainer feels that it should then the whole statement is true ie. it should not stop the package from being accepted.

The wiki on fedoraproject.org is most likely not the right place for such a list.

then ok, it seems this is true and I realize that too late sorry for wasting your time.

Dennis J., Thu, 28 May 2009 21:02:05 +0200:

Murder is a crime, pornography isn't

There are many states (including many states of USA) where it is.

Matěj

I've got no problem with it. Unlike hot-babe there's nothing even remotely resembling depiction here.

It's essentially a download tool a la aria2/d4x/gwget with a particular focus/niche and in my opinion fairly innocuous. The author is pretty up-front about what it is and what it's for - if that's reflected in the %description then the odds on it being installed "accidentally" would be fairly low.

And it looks like we have a precedent... https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/p0rn-comfort

----------

Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)

On 05/29/2009 02:01 PM, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

...

My packaging survey turned up a interesting suggestion

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2009-May/msg01809.html

We don't currently have any guidelines covering this but considering the Debian action to hot babe

http://lwn.net/Articles/113644/

I wanted to asked first, is this allowed in Fedora?

Well it depends on the content. If the content can't be read with software under the fedora umbrella, then it can't enter.

Those videos are they under the ogg format or other opensource equivalent?

There is no video, only a few harmless static drawings in PNG format.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh.goorah@gmail.com wrote:

from : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnaughty

"""Gnaughty is an utility to automatically download adult sex content, i.e. porn movies and pictures,...."""

It seems movies can be downloaded.

Yes that is true , but it does not provide any support to view that content, we have many other packages in Fedora which allows to download content and they download whatever format the site is providing, how the users watch it, it depends on their choice.

Kushal

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh.goorah@gmail.com wrote:

No, it doesn't (not till it is approved) not depend on the user's choice. My package OVM was blocked by FESCo because there was no opensource simulator. So if the downloaded videos aren't under an opensource compatible format, FESCo must rule out its package review.

As you said, no opensource simulator, but we have opensource viewer :)

Kushal

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh.goorah@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Kushal Das wrote:

...

Yes that is true , but it does not provide any support to view that content, we have many other packages in Fedora which allows to download content and they download whatever format the site is providing, how the users watch it, it depends on their choice.

No, it doesn't (not till it is approved) not depend on the user's choice. My package OVM was blocked by FESCo because there was no opensource simulator. So if the downloaded videos aren't under an opensource compatible format, FESCo must rule out its package review.

Sorry but this is just bullshit with this logic we should ban everything which can download files. In case of OVM you wanted to add the "unviewable" content into fedora, while this packages do not add the movies to fedora they just provide a way to download them. Nobody is proposing to add a mp3 file or a h264 encoded video to fedora, so you are comparing apples and oranges.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh.goorah@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Kushal Das wrote:

...

Yes that is true , but it does not provide any support to view that content, we have many other packages in Fedora which allows to download content and they download whatever format the site is providing, how the users watch it, it depends on their choice.

No, it doesn't (not till it is approved) not depend on the user's choice. My package OVM was blocked by FESCo because there was no opensource simulator. So if the downloaded videos aren't under an opensource compatible format, FESCo must rule out its package review.

From my perspective, and I think OVM should have been accepted, we

should work to fix what caused OVM to be rejected rather that try to exclude other things using the same "logic."

John

On 05/29/2009 04:24 AM, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Kushal Das wrote:

...

Yes that is true , but it does not provide any support to view that content, we have many other packages in Fedora which allows to download content and they download whatever format the site is providing, how the users watch it, it depends on their choice.

No, it doesn't (not till it is approved) not depend on the user's choice. My package OVM was blocked by FESCo because there was no opensource simulator. So if the downloaded videos aren't under an opensource compatible format, FESCo must rule out its package review.

I think these are actually very different cases. OVM is content which is useless without code that can deal with it. There is a lack of opensource code to deal with it. Therefore it is useless in our out-of-the-box distribution. What you're arguing about here is that open source code exists whose primary purpose is to download things from the internet. None of that is impacted by whether the content being downloaded can be viewed out of the box or not.

Note that I disagree with FESCo's decision on OVM so I'm not necessarily any better at interpreting how FESCo's decision affects other packages than you.

-Toshio

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Nicu Buculei nicu_fedora@nicubunu.ro wrote:

Movies in proprietary formats can be downloaded also with Firefox, Transmission, wget, etc. From the description of gnaughty I understand it can also download images, which are in free formats, so the content is in both free and proprietary formats.

Here is the purpose of the application is important. A browser is not only intended for free and proprietary formats downloader. It serves other purposes as well.

But gNaughty serves only purpose is "download porn". If we allow this package, in other words it says Fedora tolerates proprietary formats. It is not something we are comfortable with.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM, drago01 wrote:

Sorry but this is just bullshit with this logic we should ban everything which can download files. In case of OVM you wanted to add the "unviewable" content into fedora, while this packages do not add the movies to fedora they just provide a way to download them.

OVM is just a bunch for text files, viewable with any editor. I didn't say "unviewable" content.

Chitlesh

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

If the tool were directly containing support for decoding such prorietry formats that would be a different matter, because the codecs would not pass the legal rules.

OVM doesn't directly include any fedora forbidden items as well. It was refused because there was not enough opensource tools to use it. It is the same situation here.

Chitlesh

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 01:55:30PM +0200, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

...

If the tool were directly containing support for decoding such prorietry formats that would be a different matter, because the codecs would not pass the legal rules.

OVM doesn't directly include any fedora forbidden items as well. It was refused because there was not enough opensource tools to use it. It is the same situation here.

There's plenty of open source tools to play a variety of video codecs. We just can't ship them. This isn't an equivalent situation.

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 12:50 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

...

It is not Fedora's place to police *usage* of apps, only whether the app or package has a compliant license and follows the defined packaging & legal rules. If the tool were directly containing support for decoding such prorietry formats that would be a different matter, because the codecs would not pass the legal rules.

Then do you find it OK to package up a bunch of packages that provide nothing but gnome or KDE menu entries that launch porn internet sites? What about packages that add bookmarks for these in Firefox (disregarding the fact that Firefox can only have one bookmarks package at this point)? Technically it's "free software", could be packaged within the guidelines, and wouldn't be illegal on the surface, but is this really acceptable things to distribute under the Fedora brand?

and I think the distinction being made is that the bookmarks and menu items are content-only, not software.

-sv

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 12:02 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:

...

and I think the distinction being made is that the bookmarks and menu items are content-only, not software.

So an application that reads the included above mentioned "bookmarks" to let you click to go to those sites is OK? Bookmarks alone, bad. Bookmarks bundled with the application to read them good? Once the app was in, would it be good to package up other packages of just bookmarks for that app?

I was just explaining the distinction being made.

I'm actually fine with bookmark collection packages and/or menu items.

they are probably silly - but if someone wants them and will maintain them, so be it.

-sv

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 09:00 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:

Then do you find it OK to package up a bunch of packages that provide nothing but gnome or KDE menu entries that launch porn internet sites?

I am heartily interested in your ideas and wish to read your pamphlet!

On 05/29/2009 05:21 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: !

One interesting thing - does it download free content? Are there some porn sites under CC licence? Free culture, by community for community...

There is and no, I am not linking to them, here.

Rahul

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Chitlesh GOORAH chitlesh.goorah@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:

...

Internet is for porn...

Sorry I don't know this software but as someone already pointed - it's opensource, it can be used to download other content. It's same like Adobe banned rtmpdump as it can be used to download restricted content but Flash Player is used everyday to watch unlegal content!

One interesting thing - does it download free content? Are there some porn sites under CC licence? Free culture, by community for community...

Following your logic, OVM should enter fedora collection as well. !!

http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/fedora-devel-list@redhat.com/11366282....

Why did you support OVM entrance as well ?

Some OVM users don't always need a simulator in the design flow.

Well than we should stop triying to come up with weird rules to ban packages and instead revisit the decision made by FESCo.

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Florian Festi ffesti@redhat.com wrote:

Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:

...

Following your logic, OVM should enter fedora collection as well. !!

It really doesn't matter how often you repeat a wrong sentence.

There are different rules that do apply to code and content in Fedora and OVM got categorized as content and refused by the rules for content. We are talking about a program here.

True. Someone should ask the question: does it make sense to have different rules if they prevent the inclusion of useful content and allow the inclusion of useless code?

John

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Kushal Das kushaldas@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM, inode0 inode0@gmail.com wrote:

...

True. Someone should ask the question: does it make sense to have different rules if they prevent the inclusion of useful content and allow the inclusion of useless code?

Which is useless to me can be very useful to someone else.

That doesn't explain why there is a different standard for content.

John

Florian Festi wrote:

inode0 wrote:

...

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Kushal Das kushaldas@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM, inode0 inode0@gmail.com wrote:

...

True. Someone should ask the question: does it make sense to have different rules if they prevent the inclusion of useful content and allow the inclusion of useless code?

Which is useless to me can be very useful to someone else.

That doesn't explain why there is a different standard for content.

It is ok if you know and obey the rules. There is no need for you to understand why they are in place. Anyway, Fedora is a Linux distribution (for those who did not yet realize) an though (free) Linux software (that can be run on Fedora) is what it is all about and content is not (with very few exceptions). Software yes - content no.

That's essentially the reason why things are as they are.

Another (slightly related) reason is to prevent Fedora from being abused as medium for "content distribution".

Think about people packaging up "books", "music", "movies" or other media files into rpms and to push them into the Fedora repos.

Apart from the bandwidth and diskspace this would require, this would not be much of a technical problem, but it would have a significant impact elsewhere ("legality", "morality" etc. of contents)

That said, there is a "gray zone" between "contents" and "software", which need to be decided on a case by case basis. In Fedora's history, emulators, cross toolchains's target libs and game data have been such cases, other cases would be "Free Linux books/movies".

I really see no way or reason why there should be a common standard for both.

Exactly. I'd go one step further: It doesn't make sense.

Ralf

...

If you're going to maintain a spin for a like-minded community (like

ojuba.org is)

have you took a look to the proposal ? < https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InappropriateContents where does it mention anything about the alike-minded community of fanatic government censorship agents in ojuba.org ?

I think what he meant was a community who think alike, i.e. who have the same moral values (which seems to be the case for ojuba.org), not judging the righteousness of those values.

----------

Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)

inode0 wrote:

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Florian Festi ffesti@redhat.com wrote:

...

inode0 wrote:

...

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Kushal Das kushaldas@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM, inode0 inode0@gmail.com wrote:

...

True. Someone should ask the question: does it make sense to have different rules if they prevent the inclusion of useful content and allow the inclusion of useless code?

Which is useless to me can be very useful to someone else.

That doesn't explain why there is a different standard for content.

It is ok if you know and obey the rules. There is no need for you to understand why they are in place. Anyway, Fedora is a Linux distribution (for those who did not yet realize) an though (free) Linux software (that can be run on Fedora) is what it is all about and content is not (with very few exceptions). Software yes - content no. I really see no way or reason why there should be a common standard for both.

"To lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community."

That is the mission statement of what project?

The Fedora Project with is close but not exactly the same as the Fedora Linux distribution. If you want to do more for free and open content start a new sub project or join one of the sub projects that already work on content (like "Fedora Documentation" or "Fedora Artwork")

Florian

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Florian Festi wrote:

It really doesn't matter how often you repeat a wrong sentence.

There are different rules that do apply to code and content in Fedora and OVM got categorized as content and refused by the rules for content. We are talking about a program here.

FYI, actually it depends how you look at it: - from a software point of view, it's content. - from a hardware point of view, it's libraries and verification methodologies.

This confused a lot.

Chitlesh