• SUMMARY [Was Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookwo

    From Andrew M.A. Cater@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 23 19:20:01 2022
    All,

    Thank you for your considered opinions thus far. We have various developers
    who have written defending free speech: we've had others who have expressed various reservations with one aspect or other of the status quo.

    There's been a grudging consensus that this is *hard*. It's very hard indeed
    to draw good conclusions as to what to do when everyone agrees that something could be done and disagrees with what that should be.

    Notably, Sam Hartman and Branden Robinson have pointed up flaws with the existing categorisations and with a blanket removal based on preference.
    It's also noticeable that this largely comes down to consideration of
    fortunes in English - almost nothing has been said about other fortunes files or other languages, though Sam talked about cultural perceptions.

    A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package fortune files at all.

    The single collection we have is largely a random collection from BSD of
    1995 vintage, itself representative of one Unix site in 1995 or earlier.
    The upstream Github repository is potentially only one of many disparate sites on the 'Net and the English language collection doesn't reflect the languages of Debian users worldwide.

    PyPi has a fortunes-mod equivalent to read fortunes files: it doesn't necessarily include strfile but it will handle pre-existing fortune files.
    It should be open to anybody to make their own fortunes files - just as
    anyone can make a mix of their own music on their favourite music player.

    If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the means
    for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost. Debian is
    not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable
    or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.

    This also means that anyone who wishes can add the *missing* content requested in the bugs over years into their own files at their own risk.

    Your thoughts, again, please.

    Andy Cater.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Wanderer@21:1/5 to Andrew M.A. Cater on Wed Nov 23 20:20:01 2022
    This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
    On 2022-11-23 at 13:06, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

    All,

    Thank you for your considered opinions thus far. We have various
    developers who have written defending free speech: we've had others
    who have expressed various reservations with one aspect or other of
    the status quo.

    There's been a grudging consensus that this is *hard*. It's very hard
    indeed to draw good conclusions as to what to do when everyone agrees
    that something could be done and disagrees with what that should be.

    Notably, Sam Hartman and Branden Robinson have pointed up flaws with
    the existing categorisations and with a blanket removal based on
    preference. It's also noticeable that this largely comes down to consideration of fortunes in English - almost nothing has been said
    about other fortunes files or other languages, though Sam talked
    about cultural perceptions.

    A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
    fortune files at all.

    I find this suggestion demotivating and discouraging.

    The single collection we have is largely a random collection from BSD
    of 1995 vintage, itself representative of one Unix site in 1995 or
    earlier.

    I believe that this statement is inaccurate. There are parts of the
    collection which are Debian-specific (the earliest of which, per the
    changelog, were added in 1999), and others which have been added far
    more recently than 1995 (there have been what seem like substantive
    additions at least as recently as 2006).

    The way the Debian packaging splits the collection into various files,
    which I understand is not necessarily done upstream, can also be valuable.

    The upstream Github repository is potentially only one of many
    disparate sites on the 'Net and the English language collection
    doesn't reflect the languages of Debian users worldwide.

    Can you point to the repository you're referencing?

    I wanted to check that repository to see whether it had the
    Debian-specific parts of the collection, but since I can't find it, I
    can't verify that before sending this.

    The only repository URLs I find in the package metadata are the
    Vcs-Browser and Vcs-Git URLs from 'apt-cache showsrc fortunes-off'
    (which shows the information for the fortune-mod source package), and
    those are under anonscm.debian.org.

    /usr/share/doc/fortune-mod/README.gz lists several URLs, at least one of
    which appears to be a repository, but it isn't on GitHub and leads to a
    404.

    The files under /usr/share/doc/fortunes*/ don't seem to list any URLs at
    all - except for one in changelog.Debian.gz, which dates from 1998 and
    is about the addition of the 'perl' fortunes file.

    The only upstream I can find referenced is the references in changelog.debian.gz to "Pascal Hakim", but no apparent place to find
    whatever upstream that person might host seems to be mentioned.

    PyPi has a fortunes-mod equivalent to read fortunes files: it
    doesn't necessarily include strfile but it will handle pre-existing
    fortune files. It should be open to anybody to make their own
    fortunes files - just as anyone can make a mix of their own music on
    their favourite music player.

    If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the
    means for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost.
    Debian is not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose
    the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.

    I sharply disagree that nothing is lost, but I don't seem to have the
    emotional energy to try to explain why without becoming argumentative
    and probably just making things worse overall. (I have held back a draft
    which makes the attempt, but which I suspect distinctly fails.)

    This also means that anyone who wishes can add the *missing* content requested in the bugs over years into their own files at their own
    risk.

    Your thoughts, again, please.

    I am reasonably certain that this would just lead to far fewer people
    bothering to make use of the fortunes database(s) at all, thereby
    creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about how irrelevant this is in the
    modern world.

    From my perspective, this whole discussion looks like someone whom I've respected coming in and proposing to take away one of the small things
    I somewhat like having around, and that taking-away happening almost immediately despite the existence of pushback over it, and then that
    person reacting to the pushback by proposing to take away a *bigger*
    thing that I even *more* like having around. I imagine it's not hard to
    see how that could be upsetting or demotivating.

    --
    The Wanderer

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
    persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
    progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEJCOqsZEc2qVC44pUBKk1jTQoMmsFAmN+cR4ACgkQBKk1jTQo MmvBTQ/9GvX/D5wzGtZZ/XYhaoRrq0IRIW5r1OYEmNvNiP+U3pvU732hqaCMjBs6 Z9Y19oa1T09lM5OWziEvIYJh2tbQzZYqSbloKVJa9be4zUQ2GpLgZXp4IXAgnkzf 9gniQ45srDX9A8YcFf4IHdNpE+jrW6OnodwdzDJBnpiBcE6QaufDxn+/GSZg5Z/k XLj3G1Pe+0/P2fEPu4skv9rrQbkb09KiukNn4b1eX7N+v2PLP3f8gUIVjiXJQnf1 Ih3mJOb6wKAExcSQ9LCrY98gHlba9//o1uk6GPLX2czg9DQNaCXTMXptE2JhGJGg Z2PsH9zk8xvzGeZweusEz8S0lnnCofww5g45Vko0Dx2lYlWuSadF5AMz1eP+/RpG izORfFq62TXKwyBocTjHBHiQXrt1OFT5udi25A4L73rLWAS2KnjAJso2QJ/5QYHB EKzQTixhXmTovSo+RN2oYG1KPd54fe80fkT0qjVwCCeRHgEdGeF3dPzWaDdgNwBj yfM9i5Vh90v2KMr8w4VRFVM6uowBKL1/dLHu1IN8rFuibbnh975eHwb/Gg3avO09 HUIZnaP4vEQ1TUNGAtWBKSOIc7/9l35EDyv/9NfAJ0V2kmQnl7zJU2snFWtOzcGe eQRxh9J/CB2pbyYrk08s7xfZSQrc
  • From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 23 20:50:01 2022
    "Andrew" == Andrew M A Cater <amacater@einval.com> writes:

    Andrew> All, Thank you for your considered opinions thus far. We
    Andrew> have various developers who have written defending free
    Andrew> speech: we've had others who have expressed various
    Andrew> reservations with one aspect or other of the status quo.

    Andrew> There's been a grudging consensus that this is *hard*. It's
    Andrew> very hard indeed to draw good conclusions as to what to do
    Andrew> when everyone agrees that something could be done and
    Andrew> disagrees with what that should be.

    Andrew> Notably, Sam Hartman and Branden Robinson have pointed up
    Andrew> flaws with the existing categorisations and with a blanket
    Andrew> removal based on preference. It's also noticeable that this
    Andrew> largely comes down to consideration of fortunes in English -
    Andrew> almost nothing has been said about other fortunes files or
    Andrew> other languages, though Sam talked about cultural
    Andrew> perceptions.

    I think Debian has a standard approach for dealing with these sorts of
    hard issues: leave it up to the maintainer.
    I think you'd need a much stronger consensus than you could show today
    to do anything else.

    So, I have an alternative:
    This is not a project-level decision.
    Whoever is maintaining fortune should take this discussion as input and maintain the packages.
    If we don't like how they are doing that, we use our normal mechanisms
    (TC and GR) to override them.

    If you want to maintain fortune-mod and remove all the fortunes, go do
    that.
    But don't be surprised if someone else wants to maintain a version with fortunes.


    Andrew> A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to
    Andrew> package fortune files at all.

    It is not necessary, but as I discussed in my long message about
    removing software from Debian, removing creative content from Debian has
    a chilling effect.
    Even if you write a downloader, so all I have to do is type
    fortune-install really-disgusting-insensitive-stuff
    then it's still less accessible than if I can type apt install
    whatever:

    * It's not on our mirrors
    * It's not on our media

    And as I discussed in my DebConf talk [1], that sort of access matters.
    Not everyone has internet connectivity.

    [1]: https://debconf20.debconf.org/talks/32-when-we-virtualize-the-whole-internet/


    What you propose is a very community team compromise: let us remove the
    things that make us uncomfortable.
    And when those things are not core to our mission, that's often a
    reasonable approach.
    Especially when I consider the precident this creates, I consider this suggestion an escalation.
    I do not support it.
    I think it compromises the freedoms I said I care about.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iHUEARYIAB0WIQSj2jRwbAdKzGY/4uAsbEw8qDeGdAUCY3514wAKCRAsbEw8qDeG dOqpAP9yiPAzDuThHyUL6u3+ja9N+VjcqEQSD0wHYnnJ0EIVBAEA/naMciOf4owD KeVhaY4QhpwQ2gs7m12VMsudTIpvcgo=
    =bF7x
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrew M.A. Cater@21:1/5 to The Wanderer on Wed Nov 23 20:50:01 2022
    On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:14:38PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
    On 2022-11-23 at 13:06, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

    A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
    fortune files at all.

    I find this suggestion demotivating and discouraging.

    The single collection we have is largely a random collection from BSD
    of 1995 vintage, itself representative of one Unix site in 1995 or
    earlier.


    https://github.com/Distrotech/fortune-mod/tree/master/datfiles has the
    majority of what we have - and similarly for other Linux distros, I
    believe.

    I believe that this statement is inaccurate. There are parts of the collection which are Debian-specific (the earliest of which, per the changelog, were added in 1999), and others which have been added far
    more recently than 1995 (there have been what seem like substantive
    additions at least as recently as 2006).

    The way the Debian packaging splits the collection into various files,
    which I understand is not necessarily done upstream, can also be valuable.


    See above.

    The upstream Github repository is potentially only one of many
    disparate sites on the 'Net and the English language collection
    doesn't reflect the languages of Debian users worldwide.

    Can you point to the repository you're referencing?

    I wanted to check that repository to see whether it had the
    Debian-specific parts of the collection, but since I can't find it, I
    can't verify that before sending this.

    The only repository URLs I find in the package metadata are the
    Vcs-Browser and Vcs-Git URLs from 'apt-cache showsrc fortunes-off'
    (which shows the information for the fortune-mod source package), and
    those are under anonscm.debian.org.

    /usr/share/doc/fortune-mod/README.gz lists several URLs, at least one of which appears to be a repository, but it isn't on GitHub and leads to a
    404.

    The files under /usr/share/doc/fortunes*/ don't seem to list any URLs at
    all - except for one in changelog.Debian.gz, which dates from 1998 and
    is about the addition of the 'perl' fortunes file.

    The only upstream I can find referenced is the references in changelog.debian.gz to "Pascal Hakim", but no apparent place to find
    whatever upstream that person might host seems to be mentioned.

    PyPi has a fortunes-mod equivalent to read fortunes files: it
    doesn't necessarily include strfile but it will handle pre-existing
    fortune files. It should be open to anybody to make their own
    fortunes files - just as anyone can make a mix of their own music on
    their favourite music player.

    If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the
    means for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost.
    Debian is not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose
    the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.

    I sharply disagree that nothing is lost, but I don't seem to have the emotional energy to try to explain why without becoming argumentative
    and probably just making things worse overall. (I have held back a draft which makes the attempt, but which I suspect distinctly fails.)

    This also means that anyone who wishes can add the *missing* content requested in the bugs over years into their own files at their own
    risk.

    Your thoughts, again, please.

    I am reasonably certain that this would just lead to far fewer people bothering to make use of the fortunes database(s) at all, thereby
    creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about how irrelevant this is in the modern world.

    From my perspective, this whole discussion looks like someone whom I've respected coming in and proposing to take away one of the small things
    I somewhat like having around, and that taking-away happening almost immediately despite the existence of pushback over it, and then that
    person reacting to the pushback by proposing to take away a *bigger*
    thing that I even *more* like having around. I imagine it's not hard to
    see how that could be upsetting or demotivating.


    The way it was packaged 25 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that we
    have to continue to do the same indefinitely - we now have a much wider Internet to select from rather than storing program and files in the same space.

    I could see that being upsetting or demotivating - I'm not proposing
    removing anything from the 'Net or files that already exist: I'm
    suggesting that finding consensus on actual maintenance of fortune
    files is harder than it originally appeared to me.

    I'm also not suggesting that we police anything - on the contrary, that we mightleave it to users to pick their own favourite quotes for their own fortune
    files.

    Again, thanks for your considered and considerate approach in your response which is appreciated.

    With every good wish, as ever,

    Andy Cater

    --
    The Wanderer

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
    persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
    progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Diederik de Haas@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 23 21:32:32 2022
    On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 19:06:33 CET Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
    If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the means
    for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost. Debian is
    not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable
    or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.

    My problem with this all is that it was removed NOT because it violates the DFSG or that it was (properly) considered illegal.
    Those are excellent reasons to remove it.

    It was removed because someone found its contents objectionable.

    Thereby you make the criteria subjective.
    To be consistent you'd have to remove ALL packages/contents which someone
    could possibly find objectionable.

    /me wonders whether he should grab popcorn or run

    Here's an example: I find stoning, crucifixion and keeping people as slaves rather objectionable. So let's get rid of all Bible related packages?
    Keep the package, but make the content downloadable from 'some' site?

    Another: I find ML* the tool to single out (and normally 'punish' in some way) anyone who falls out of the statistical norm. So it reduces people to numbers and anyone who falls out of that statistical norm, is an anomaly and/or and outcast. If that's a value that Debian wants to promote, I'm out.

    And to be consistent, you'd then have to scan ALL the content, including all the source code for phrases/expressions that someone may find objectionable. How about projects who use 'master' as the name of their main development branch? Get rid of that too?

    Good luck getting a new Stable release out within the next 10 years.


    My main objections are thus:
    - It's subjective. And (therefor) a slippery slope.
    - If you do it, you have to do it across the board. Consistently.

    You may find the fortunes-mod package distasteful, but if you like it or not, it is representative of that time. So from a historical perspective, that has value. Just as 'Mein Kampf' has value from that perspective. But it being illegal in some jurisdictions could prevent it from entering the archive,
    which is an excellent and objective reason.
    Also, you/people have the option/freedom to NOT install the package.
    Name it 'fortunes-offensive' so no one installs it 'by accident'.

    My 0.02

    *) It is irrelevant if my understanding of ML is incorrect. The criteria for inclusion in the archive has become subjective now.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iHUEABYIAB0WIQT1sUPBYsyGmi4usy/XblvOeH7bbgUCY36DYAAKCRDXblvOeH7b bjMHAPsEPNjlRhIxyFPoXiZukvf+MeMBTFkeBNr0RjVSRzLh2AEAjwr3ZBrbyRhq d1Fo2iXJgHC4W7uQoYjSnJEbVMHktA8=
    =ChFI
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From G. Branden Robinson@21:1/5 to The Wanderer on Wed Nov 23 22:20:01 2022
    [I'm using the pseudonymous respondent's message to reply to Mr. Cater
    as well. Mind the angle brackets for quotation context.]

    At 2022-11-23T14:14:38-0500, The Wanderer wrote:
    On 2022-11-23 at 13:06, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
    Thank you for your considered opinions thus far. We have various
    developers who have written defending free speech: we've had others
    who have expressed various reservations with one aspect or other of
    the status quo.

    There's been a grudging consensus that this is *hard*.

    I gather that you don't join in that consensus, because your
    prescriptions are quick and easy. Mr. Dowland's assessment of everyone
    who wants his action reversed as being desirous of association with
    racism, sexism, and pro-Nazi sentiment[1] is facile, hasty, and
    fallacious.

    Neither you nor he, therefore, is well placed to present a
    (presumptively neutral) summary of the discussion. (Neither am I.)

    Notably, Sam Hartman and Branden Robinson have pointed up flaws with
    the existing categorisations and with a blanket removal based on preference. It's also noticeable that this largely comes down to consideration of fortunes in English - almost nothing has been said
    about other fortunes files or other languages, though Sam talked
    about cultural perceptions.

    A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
    fortune files at all.

    I'm going to have to add "a serious suggestion" to "honestly" and "trust
    me" as linguistic tags that flag a declaration as deceptive.

    Have you worked on embedded systems, ever? It's not _necessary_ for
    Debian to package much of anything. We could arguably serve just as
    well as "universal OS" by providing only a nucleus, say, a high-quality microkernel.[2] Minimalism has never been an objective of the package
    archive. This fact has been so transparently obvious for so long that
    it is difficult for me to maintain the presumption that you are arguing
    in good faith.

    I find this suggestion demotivating and discouraging.

    Sorry to hear that. My own reaction is better termed "pissed off".

    I believe that this statement is inaccurate. There are parts of the collection which are Debian-specific (the earliest of which, per the changelog, were added in 1999), and others which have been added far
    more recently than 1995 (there have been what seem like substantive
    additions at least as recently as 2006).

    Yes, some of them were collected by Joseph Carter ("knghtbrd"), a former
    Debian developer, ca. 2000 and for some time afterward.

    The way the Debian packaging splits the collection into various files,
    which I understand is not necessarily done upstream, can also be
    valuable.

    I agree with this. If I were maintainer I think I'd thus segregate the
    sort of mathy stuff I'd like to see, in acknowledgement that some people
    just aren't edified or provoked to thought by such things. Similarly,
    some people just aren't up to being randomly confronted by exemplars of
    human folly, which characterizes the 1.5% or so of the fortunes-off
    package at issue, even if they _type_ "fortune" at a shell prompt.

    The upstream Github repository is potentially only one of many
    disparate sites on the 'Net and the English language collection
    doesn't reflect the languages of Debian users worldwide.

    Is anyone being prevented from submitting fortune collections localized
    to other languages? Several are already present.[3] Would you be able
    to recognize a Hitler quote rendered in Cyrillic? Might such a quote
    not carry context for a person with family who participated in the Great Patriotic War that you don't share? Perhaps some derogatory quip about
    the inferiority of the Slavs, when Russians culturally well remember
    hoisting the hammer and sickle over the Reichstag on 2 May 1945 (as my countryfolk do a similar event at Iwo Jima).

    Your response, to exclude it all and _foreclose as a matter of policy_
    the curation and maintenance of such resources amounts to declaring the
    Debian Project impotent to address the challenges here.

    It's my turn to cite §2.1.1 of the Debian Constitution as Steve Langasek
    did to me. You are not _required_ to deal with fortune cookies. You
    don't have to install them or use them. There are many packages that
    any given user will never employ, or even be aware of.

    The Project does not require your paternalistic supervision.

    Remolding the archive to more closely resemble your personal corpus of installed packages is a curious way to serve the principles of plurality
    and diversity.

    If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the
    means for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost.
    Debian is not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose
    the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.

    If you don't want these responsibilities, don't adopt them. Same goes
    for Mr. Dowland.

    I am reasonably certain that this would just lead to far fewer people bothering to make use of the fortunes database(s) at all, thereby
    creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about how irrelevant this is in
    the modern world.

    The people who try to ban books in the United States employ a similar multi-level strategy. If censorship of the local public library's
    collection is unsuccessful, they propose withdrawal of funds for the
    library, removing a much greater volume of common resources from public facility.[4] No doubt to the satisfaction of the oligopolistic
    publishing industry, which views public libraries as frustrating its
    extraction of monopoly rents.[5]

    From my perspective, this whole discussion looks like someone whom
    I've respected coming in and proposing to take away one of the small
    things I somewhat like having around, and that taking-away happening
    almost immediately despite the existence of pushback over it, and then
    that person reacting to the pushback by proposing to take away a
    *bigger* thing that I even *more* like having around. I imagine it's
    not hard to see how that could be upsetting or demotivating.

    I have to disagree with Sam a bit here, while "be bold" is _often_ good
    advice, especially in volunteer communities, it is not always. Apart
    from the present contretemps, I can think of another (again from the
    United States).[6]

    Apparently the package's maintainer has not done an upload since
    2013.[7] Even groff has managed to release twice since then![8]

    I therefore solicit a volunteer who is fully up-to-date with packaging processes to privately advise me so that I can avoid making tedious
    mistakes. E.g., I don't know if filing bugs against "wnpp" is still
    necessary or recommended for adopting a package with nine years of
    inattention. Please email me privately if you feel yourself qualified
    and are supportive of my intended action. You don't need to be
    enthusiastic about the package's _content_; I am not myself--there is a
    lot of crap in there IMO, even apart from the stuff at issue here.

    In the short run, my plan would be to ensure that the package is policy-compliant (and therefore can't be sniped again before release on
    a technicality by some "deeply principled" person), evaluate the handful
    of categories that are suggestive of group prejudice, and decide on some
    kind of updated disclaimer (if necessary) so that the package can warn
    about itself. In the years since fortunes-mod was first packaged for
    Debian, the abbreviation "NSFW" has become commonly known for tagging of materials like this. That may be more communicative than an "-off"
    suffix in the 2020s. But if a rename will frustrate the package's
    progress through the incoming queue, I won't do it before the bookworm
    release. The NSFW annotation can easily go in the package description.

    In the long run, I expect to curate as suits me personally; I'll
    document my actions (of course) and if someone wants to package the
    items I throw away, that's up to them. One can expect the addition of
    items reflecting my personal interests, like math, retrocomputing, music theory, and Catalan revolutionaries.

    I don't have the desire or--especially--the time to undertake major
    changes in the package before the bookworm release. I have something
    else I'm working that brings me joy and I'd like to get that solid for
    GNU release and thence into Debian. Approximately 400 upstream bugs
    fixed--it does an old XFree86 package maintainer's heart good.[9][10]

    Anyone who helps has my thanks in advance.

    Regards,
    Branden

    [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2022/11/msg00062.html

    [2] And do I ever have one in mind I'd like to tell people about! It
    would please me much more than fighting over elementary principles
    of open society.

    [3] https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=fortunes

    [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/24/michigan-library-defunded-gender-queer/
    [5] https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/89038-over-the-past-25-years-the-big-publishers-got-bigger-and-fewer.html

    [6] As usual, it was our conservo-glibertarian friends who were behind
    this (q.v. "Free State Project").

    "...At issue was the local school budget, which funds a school for
    children through fourth grade in town and covers tuition for older
    students to attend private and public schools in neighboring towns.
    At a poorly attended annual meeting in March, voters approved a
    measure to cut the school budget by more than half, from $1.7
    million to $800,000.

    The cut would have transformed the education system in Croydon,
    replacing the public school system with one run by cheaper, private
    companies that offer individualized programs, largely online.
    Croydon would have become the first community in New Hampshire where
    two companies, Prenda and Kaipod, would have become the default
    education providers.

    Both companies have been championed by New Hampshire Education
    Commissioner Frank Edelblut, who helped them secure contracts with
    the state of New Hampshire. ..."

    https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2022-05-08/croydon-voters-overturn-school-budget-cut

    [7] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fortune-mod
    [8] https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/groff/
    [9] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/ANNOUNCE
    [10] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/NEWS

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEh3PWHWjjDgcrENwa0Z6cfXEmbc4FAmN+ixAACgkQ0Z6cfXEm bc79qw/8C3LSDysnCyQJQYMo7zs/bM51d1bc9qI414tiK6Bt0jieaplINXzJyUw7 RgzRzrRfia/NZcBoXLOTWxHVeLk9L18mzDfsWcWgunf41qquIDsTEHF13DKV4NgW sEimttKJS8paLDQo8akQ2zcJ3sWkxSWj2zsa22OaQnaP7ZAqs7ASRpKw+RhS1s3p tVqmR2GzNYlqJEFvj/5G81eAi7TcrA0kTocpWbciASv04jTdWePgOpABTW+kqcZr lI7qmTAa/oe5x890vxdIbt14zuDduTfzkheYFdwPdMs4+xNkYocucmiWTbq1H6dL P4ltphIBcsDOXgnWvcYxuOY7GC/BBDHxW+ONgN72a6W9VcjqvZEUcKM7fEIxn3Mp KvFvaRrwUfdfnJpcd8HZO9ad7rYgfH0Y2F1YPV1ohjhdgRBuBOLuln6ugY3/g4Pg V6oYPCSdukT2OMpTp+gUwcffxXyCoG9rnxi9MuWSM2K+K1Sq3xT35SNB1p5ux1ol j/xz+KDH37PuAdfytAFFUxQD3fqzg4yjaVUWw18RVqPpUo1qvJsmKvAfHhZELY7f jvS/W3L/TGDRUyadKuHpfM78LztLvdob8Jh4QuY6vVhWPLqaCvNNsSClaT2Nsa5I CkqdCaLxSbZvNvv/CrDxSteGjrose9zFzAk6UXpm0UOLHC10pPw=
    =6/XN
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ansgar@21:1/5 to Sam Hartman on Thu Nov 24 00:00:02 2022
    On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 12:34 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
    It is not necessary, but as I discussed in my long message about
    removing software from Debian, removing creative content from Debian
    has a chilling effect.

    I would very much prefer explicit sexual content over Nazi symbols. So
    let me make a suggestion:

    If we insist on keeping Nazi symbolics in Debian, let's at least also
    add explicit quotes from descriptions of Hitler + Blondi sexual
    adventures (which I'm sure must exist on the internet), various form of
    sexual abuse (there is enough fictional content to quote) and more in
    the fortune-off package or elsewhere.

    Or are explicit sexual references so bad that Nazi symbols are okay for
    freedom of speech, but sexual references not?

    In a related question: should we accept packages that link to, say, the Stormfront web site in user-facing material or source code? (That's not
    really hypothetical: I believe we have at least one package referencing
    a page including racism and Holocaust denial.)

    What about software greeting the user with a friendly "Sieg Heil" ("not
    illegal in all juristictions" / "in every jurisdiction in the world"
    was used as an argument earlier in the thread...)?

    And for the "chilling effect": Debian makes it fairly easy to add
    additional software sources; it's not like ecosystems where one or few providers have a near monopoly like platform App stores, credit card
    companies, Twitter, Amazon, ... which use their power to remove content
    they don't like. And that is despite providers like Twitter, Github and
    so on even having legal protections for third-party content which
    Debian would not fall under, i.e., they do more control while having
    less legal risks (AFAIU).

    Or if you like another comparison more: Debian is more a newspaper
    (with selected articles) rather than a generic communication provider
    like the post office that can be used to send any information. Not
    being able to publish your article in the New York Times is not a
    chilling effect or censorship, the post office refusing to send certain
    mail on the other hand would be.

    Ansgar

    --
    "He [Hitler] is an extreme masochist who derives pleasure from having a
    woman squat over him while she urinates or defecates on his face."
    -- Walter C. Langer: A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler:
    His Life and Legend; PDF page 102 in
    https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02646R000600240001-5.pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Wanderer@21:1/5 to Ansgar on Thu Nov 24 00:30:01 2022
    This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
    On 2022-11-23 at 16:16, Ansgar wrote:

    On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 12:34 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
    It is not necessary, but as I discussed in my long message about
    removing software from Debian, removing creative content from
    Debian has a chilling effect.

    I would very much prefer explicit sexual content over Nazi symbols.
    So let me make a suggestion:

    If we insist on keeping Nazi symbolics in Debian, let's at least
    also add explicit quotes from descriptions of Hitler + Blondi sexual adventures (which I'm sure must exist on the internet), various form
    of sexual abuse (there is enough fictional content to quote) and more
    in the fortune-off package or elsewhere.

    Or are explicit sexual references so bad that Nazi symbols are okay
    for freedom of speech, but sexual references not?

    Do you have anything specific to point to as constituting "Nazi
    symbolics"?

    I'm not sure I can think of *anything* in the fortunes-off package which
    would actually be even Nazi propaganda, much less Nazi symbology or
    symbolism (I'm not sure what "symbolics" here means). Even the "Mein
    Kampf" reference that were cited by count as reason to remove it, when
    examined directly, don't seem to qualify; like every other Hitler-et-al.
    quote in there that I remember seeing on a recent skim-through with this
    sort of question in mind, they seem to be there to present and remind us
    of how horrible these things are *because it was Nazis saying them*.

    It seems to be being taken as a given that any quote from a Nazi is automatically objectionable enough to exclude just because of who said
    it, *even if provoking thought about how objectionable those people are
    is the point of including that quote*. (Or, as with most of the "Mein
    Kampf" quotes, provoking thought about how objectionable X other thing
    must be because this known-objectionable person said this about it.)

    If there's going to be criticism of the package for its contents, we
    should make sure that the contents actually match the characteristics
    being criticized, and I'm not at all sure that that's been shown.

    In a related question: should we accept packages that link to, say,
    the Stormfront web site in user-facing material or source code?
    (That's not really hypothetical: I believe we have at least one
    package referencing a page including racism and Holocaust denial.)

    What about software greeting the user with a friendly "Sieg Heil"
    ("not illegal in all juristictions" / "in every jurisdiction in the
    world" was used as an argument earlier in the thread...)?

    I don't have the time or energy at the moment to properly engage with
    those questions, but I do see sufficient reason to distinguish them from
    the one(s) about fortunes-off, such that the answers to those (sets of) questions could well be different.

    And for the "chilling effect": Debian makes it fairly easy to add
    additional software sources; it's not like ecosystems where one or few providers have a near monopoly like platform App stores, credit card companies, Twitter, Amazon, ... which use their power to remove content
    they don't like. And that is despite providers like Twitter, Github and
    so on even having legal protections for third-party content which
    Debian would not fall under, i.e., they do more control while having
    less legal risks (AFAIU).

    That's true, and a good thing. It doesn't mean that removing such
    content from the official repositories *doesn't* have a chilling effect, however; at most it means that that effect is less than it otherwise
    might be.

    The term "chilling effect" is not about blocking access to, or ability
    to get/use, a thing; it's about discouraging people from engaging in /
    with that thing. (IIRC its modern usage dates back to Supreme Court jurisprudence on the subject of freedom of speech, possibly in an
    anti-war context.)

    --
    The Wanderer

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
    persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
    progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEJCOqsZEc2qVC44pUBKk1jTQoMmsFAmN+qKoACgkQBKk1jTQo MmuAfg/9FI1ddf2cUvjSEQZnLhpbkEbepPuHgLwphyT6MfLXhKJnsGXwHAJE52DZ Ro+OYS4s2HcWxead4z8rewVZ0IRBigbQcy/rd8M+vqlGYz5U4AI6Zr3C+32lM7UM 4pHKz8b6uAVkkBzxWfiwwSU791Vehpf9cdBbaFJsxbz+BeMu0etUNlHPcjp1+Ysz DRPj8wR22Pn/ok+7ei0ieA2pafJ54cabpp2ji8jfSiumybDzD8GCL96IAILi7idp FuDyzHcRDYpsq/cfKbZuYW0WT6tIrefUgBvlVJtUn74DWi9LMn799t9EolauociB I1efvmauPF1/G4+yYGV5gLD3Ee4XqPOxonG+kCCJLWtdgZFyOD2TjCa4V2qa9hCh kHaTftdT+aoiJGdfVkby4mqUBb6nVR4YTCt4RNjAk0RrIhv+6rXEuOQvAIps0y+3 gM/SXIi8v0nABbqN1ooEY2JExnE6cAurf12gM9GDauzWvgGIFJHQdvJC9trpVWiG +ZFGgjJC+Wcs+lqxBnnIA9R3d+AreAVEA2d1kZhqaxMFK4u88SSxe1B1SpLs8U0O nNMoDQS6oDLuDChW4JIRmPai/jUDpGLq3toULhNeUZhs9MBIzj3e4SxOH09t9Kou B1c3ndSykwbHSk36RZcgQkI0C8Xm
  • From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 24 01:20:02 2022
    "Ansgar" == Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> writes:


    Ansgar> I would very much prefer explicit sexual content over Nazi
    Ansgar> symbols. So let me make a suggestion:

    As would I.
    If anyone wants to work on the challenges of adult content feel free to
    reach out and I'd be happy to spend some of my time on that.

    I am not particularly interested in erotica in Debian, so much as
    software to promote sexual freedom.

    I think there are legal challenges to sexually explicit content in
    Debian.
    And yes, there absolutely are legal challenges to some things related to
    nazis in in Debian.

    I think one thing that Andrew and I both failed to include in our
    summaries is that there is a strong consensus we should not distribute
    things that are illegal to distribute.
    I think there's a consensus that if parts of fortunes-off that are
    illegal to distribute they should not be distributed.
    I think there is disagreement about how credible any such claims are.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Wanderer@21:1/5 to Gerardo Ballabio on Thu Nov 24 13:00:01 2022
    This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
    On 2022-11-24 at 04:29, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:

    Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

    A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
    fortune files at all.

    I absolutely disagree with that.

    The fortune package is completely nonfunctional without any fortune
    files. True, I could download fortune files from anywhere on the
    internet, and even make my own. But that isn't what I've learned to
    expect from Debian.

    When I install a Debian package, I expect it to function out of the
    box, at least for a reasonable core subset of its full
    functionality. I don't expect to have to search the web for
    additional files in order to make it work *at all*.

    While I agree with and support that perspective and argument...

    That would be like packaging into Debian a game engine without
    providing any game data. For example, a driving game without any
    race tracks, or without any cars. Would you ever do that?

    ...I think Debian kind of already does do this. The repositories include various interactive-fiction interpreters (which are game engines in any important sense, I think), in the form of at least the zoom-player,
    qtads, inform, glulxe, and gargoyle-free packages - but I'm not sure I
    remember seeing any actual interactive-fiction games in there, and with
    a variety of search terms to 'apt-cache search' just now I haven't found
    any.

    A better comparison might be packaging dict/dictd without providing any dictionary files. Yes, they're available out there and you could
    download and install them where dictd and its tools could find and use
    them, but it's not really functional without any installed.

    --
    The Wanderer

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
    persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
    progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEJCOqsZEc2qVC44pUBKk1jTQoMmsFAmN/WuIACgkQBKk1jTQo MmutzQ//WJ48xbAW6TBtBw2uwe9oadMp/opkJexw+BATTtPOZtGKeOCyPw7SvBaC juzuHEOrOqX9/ixPSRrn5PXdkFR83XEj0wQO+3lNejHhrfS6sY/0TAhCSei4LzQr 2ufCxsV8/oauV6LxScJQFcdIwYCtA0NEhAiu0UryLqlmjc5clbFEKbbEFwrq0bqA WnYTl6+mNerckTHSGgwqmR4K9TAKySbWxnR+JMHzEmi03JcN3UZPafvs7RFvhDSi lNflwb5KQjQseektJ+2mMvp0lGAgsR8A3p5xWtLTF7a6ULrgsYPa8zbCnSss8rxm uxuwZDh/FsBkGGSBJhBzPEAY1Wm2oj5IHYkRSEqPkW3D4IUQkBVdCq+nsO1nUQQV H6zzRFGnqP7wJ2KdphaXzRGzeM8pLaEO2bOX7ArUzx3B77BFA1G3zI+W/DS9B0wf 4sPZMOgTZJsokbYKMU58A4u/vsexW706A6rdg7Uy7kJpfMJ+133+IWeb6BlTXthf 2nCTIysxC+d8iqy8e/oUF0ANRVJC31q1qcPoMohj4HzDHRhU6lgOLLFh9W4cj4/4 WmZ4oLuMFEIwnIEpNzttcTNs7iQoNG3azVCTmCVyNeahRmZdWa1AdEqp5Qb4ADLC WakYuxxV9mwxd+2tBsH52lJDpfua
  • From Gerardo Ballabio@21:1/5 to Andrew M.A. Cater on Thu Nov 24 12:20:01 2022
    Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
    A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package fortune files
    at all.

    I absolutely disagree with that.

    The fortune package is completely nonfunctional without any fortune files. True, I could download fortune files from anywhere on the internet,
    and even make my own.
    But that isn't what I've learned to expect from Debian.

    When I install a Debian package, I expect it to function out of the
    box, at least for a reasonable core subset of its full functionality.
    I don't expect to have to search the web for additional files in order
    to make it work *at all*.

    That would be like packaging into Debian a game engine without
    providing any game data. For example, a driving game without any race
    tracks, or without any cars. Would you ever do that?

    Gerardo

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)