honig@BONNIE.UCI.EDU.UUCP (03/21/87)
One practical question: Are installations with Gnu emacs required to maintain ALL its' files (including cookie recipies, humor, etc.); or required to make them available; or required to make their presence known; or what? Flame on: It would be appreciated if those offensive postings which advocate Bowdlerization/censorship were so described in their headers, and possibly encrypted (rot13 is sufficient) so that readers are not involuntarily disgusted by the 'ideas' represented therein. FYI, Mr. Newman, the only 'options' that you listed that abuse other's rights are the -r option, and in cases where the children are not competant, the -P option (& if the animal is uninterested, the -B option). Looking over the sex.1 file, I'm amazed that Mr. Newman was offended at only the options he listed. This author at least can tolerate others' interests in the other 'options', (and even others' interests in belief systems like Mr. Newman's) whether or not I agree, so long as they do not interfere with other people against their will. With that criteria, the -v (voyeurism) and -e (exhibitionism) options refer to immoral behavior; but Mr. Newman ignores these options, instead worrying about consenting adults' use of whips (I'd rather have humans buy whips for their friends than for their horses...) I find the sex.1 file, including references to rape, pedophilia, etc., to be harmless because they do not advocate such behavior; however, I do find Mr. Newman's letter (and previous, similar letters) offensive in that they specifically, seriously, advocate repugnant behavior. Flame off. --Yow, Is This The 80's Yet?--
bob@OHIO-STATE.ARPA.UUCP (03/23/87)
Since mine was the first complaint about the offensive material, I guess I'll clarify my point of view. > From: David Andrew Honig <honig@bonnie.UCI.EDU> > > One practical question: Are installations with Gnu emacs > required to maintain ALL its' files (including cookie > recipies, humor, etc.); or required to make them available; or > required to make their presence known; or what? In all files that are available on osu-eddie for UUCP redistribution of GNU software, everything that came from prep is included, for exactly this reason: While I hold strong opinions about some of the material that has appeared in the midst of the software distributions, I am unqualified as a censor, and I find censorship itself offensive. Since the files offered on osu-eddie are explicitly claimed to be simply redistributions, anything that RMS or others decided to put in the original distribution from prep is included for others to acquire and do with what they wish. In our local source directories, I have removed and do not maintain portions of the distribution that are inappropriate or unnecessary. This includes the shortnames directory (because we are uniformly a BSD shop, at least for now), GDB on our Pyramid, and the like. The list of items from the source distribution that I don't maintain also includes ones that are inappropriate for other reasons, and like any other file that I install and maintain for our users, I have discretion over what that list includes. Lately, it has included some files that are explicitly not useful software, and completely unrelated to the GNU Emacs software distribution, other than by their proximity to useful software, in what I got via FTP from prep. Thus far, practicality (time limitations and the effort involved) has precluded me from combing the entire distribution as I install it, whether for Trojan Horses or inappropriate/unnecessary material or whatever, so someone looking at our source directories may find a lot of this sort of thing. That's more a reflection on my personal load factor than upon any considered decisions I may have made. It turned out that not installing `etc/sex.1' was easier than installing it, so I didn't. If it were easier to install it than not, I may have removed it on disc-usage grounds anyway. It would seem entirely impractical and inappropriate for the GNU Emacs Public License, or some other instrument of FSF, to require system administrators to maintain some specific software or other files on systems under their responsibility; especially if it is inappropriate for the operation of those systems (e.g. GDB on a Pyramid or 3B2 or some other unsupported machine). It would even seem against the spirit of the FSF scheme of things - that is, that once we have the distribution we should be able to do with it whatever we wish, so long as we freely redistribute it (in its original entirety) to anyone who asks. > Flame on: > It would be appreciated if those offensive postings which > advocate Bowdlerization/censorship were so described in their > headers, and possibly encrypted (rot13 is sufficient) so that > readers are not involuntarily disgusted by the 'ideas' > represented therein. I do not advocate censorship, only appropriateness and responsibility. As I said before, I find censorship itself offensive. However, the items discussed are entirely inappropriate for a software distribution, and I am still disappointed with FSF for having included them in GNU Emacs, but that is FSF's decision. I am yet even more disappointed with RMS for defending their inclusion in the manner he has chosen, but that is his decision. Yow, we've sure strayed a long ways from Emacs, haven't we? How about letting this whole issue rest peaceably and get back to the topic? Any fun bugs in 18.41 yet? ------ Bob Sutterfield, Department of Computer and Information Science The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277 bob@ohio-state.{arpa,csnet} or ...!cb{osgd,att}!osu-eddie!bob (614) 292 - 0915 or (614) 292 - 5813