Re: CoC policy for package contents

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:18:03 -0700
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<3709382.h0BymrIErR@soren-desktop>
On Tuesday, July 22, 2025 4:29:00 AM Mountain Standard Time Ilu wrote:
> More importantly than morality issues Debian needs to consider legal
> issues. I have no idea whether a CoC or GR is needed but if such an GR
> is put to the vote legal constraints cannot be ignored.
> 
> Am 21.07.25 um 20:05 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> > On 21/07/25 at 19:22 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> I can think of a few more examples that caused controversies in in the
> >> past:
> >> - A system load monitor, about 20 years ago, that used a cartoon of a
> >> 
> >>    lady who was progressively undressed as the computer got warmer.
> > 
> > It was named 'hot-babe'.
> > 
> > Those themes for hot-babe could serve as test data points for a policy
> > on the content of packages:  http://caca.zoy.org/wiki/hot-babe
> > 
> >> - A toolkit called "weboob" (for "WEB Outside Of Browser") that had
> >> 
> >>    devolved into a bunch of juvenile boob jokes
> > 
> > #906119, #907199
> 
> I vaguely remember a mailing list discussion about distributing a game
> with child-porn elements - that was considered fine by some but is
> strongly illegal in lots of jurisdictions. Luckily it never made it into
> Debian.
> 
> >> I *also* think that it's not a problem if software in Debian does such
> >> things optionally, if explicitly enabled. But perhaps not everyone
> >> agrees with that, and that's fine.
> > 
> > The line is difficult to draw: fortunes-*-off, hot-babe or weboob
> > are/were optional in Debian (as in no user is forced to install them,
> > and they probably don't/didn't have reverse-depends). So it would be OK
> > to keep them in Debian?
> 
> Debian has a responsibility regarding their mirrors to not make them
> inadvertendly distribute punishable material, even if optional. In some
> jurisdictions this also involves historical quotes if not put into a
> scientific historical context. Keeping them optional will not help the
> mirror in case it gets under scrutiny.
> 
> I know that what different jurisdictions see as punishable offense
> differs wildly around the world. But there is at least some agreement in
> a majority of jurisdiction about what never goes and about what only
> goes from a certain age. Remember that distributing inappropriate
> material to minors is also punishable in some (most?) jurisdictions. And
> Debian does not do age verification. This means that at least the user
> interaction of every package needs to stay on the "appropriate for
> children"-side. No matter whether optional or not.
> 
> I haven't looked at fortune-off but if it contains porn, violence or
> quotes of certain historical figures without appropriate context (I'm
> not talking about DDs here), it needs to leave Debian.
> 
> Enforced age verification might cause problems for some games which does
> not sit well with me and might need further discussion if legislation
> goes as planned by the EU. But even games in Debian should have their
> limits (as in the example mentioned above).
> 
> In any case user interaction can be required to respect the laws and
> whenever anybody feels the need to present material to the user that is
> known to be illegal in many jurisdictions it should not be distributed
> by Debian. At the very least in order to protect our mirrors.

I agree with all of the above.  I believe this is already Debian’s de facto 
policy, but any Code of Acceptable Content we develop should explicitly state 
that Debian will not distribute illegal content in the jurisdictions we 
support, and that, because Debian will never perform age verification on its 
users, that means that Debian will not distribute material that is illegal for 
minors in jurisdictions it supports.

The distinction about jurisdictions we support is important.  As regional 
variations in laws increases, we are soon going to have to confront 
difficulties in local laws prohibiting fundamental aspects of Debian’s 
mission.  For example, I do not think it will be too far distant when some 
parts of the world will make the DFSG 5 "No Discrimination Against Persons or 
Groups” and DFSG 6 "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor” illegal by 
requiring software distributions to discriminate against persons, groups, and 
fields of endeavor.  At that point, we are going to have to decide if we will 
lower our standards or if we will cease to actively distribute in and support 
those jurisdictions.  My expectation is that we will decide to withdraw from 
those jurisdictions rather than allow them to rewrite the DFSG.  In those 
cases where we no longer support a jurisdiction because its laws conflict with 
our core principles, then abiding by the laws of that jurisdiction will no 
longer apply to the Code of Acceptable Content either.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)