This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
- From: Joshua Kolden <joshua at CrackCreative dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:50:08 -0800
- Subject: Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
- Organization: Crack Creative
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
Arbitrary pronouncement, in light of this I see no flaw in my
reasoning. The content exists, it has already been provided. "Should
it be provided" is moot. Support your position or yield it.
The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this
obscene content?This is not the question.
Yes, it is.
Bugs in software can an should be reported as such, operational failure
of software is not uncommon and in no way need of debate. The debate
arises from the position you put forward that the content should not be
there even in properly operating software.
Cygwin already provides the content.
Accidentally, and without the knowledge or consent of the user.
Again arbitrary pronouncement, without supporting argument. Not
compelling. I still see now flaw in my analysis.
Therefore the question is: should it be removed?
The answer to that is yes. Again I ask: why should Cygwin provide this
I am not late to the debate, I simply had to assume that you were
putting forward your own opinion. If you are not putting forward you
opinion then there is no debate, because there is no one who is
offended. Arguing someone else's potential position is meaningless.
You argue that it should, because you asses some of the
content as obscene, and are personally offended by it.
You're late to the party Josh. As I stated in my second post on the
subject, I am in no way personally offended by it. I simply find it purile
Further you imply that removing the package from your own
system is inadequate to address this offense. (please correct
me if I miss state your argument)<>
You have almost completely misstated my argument. Allow me to restate
convenient bullet-list form:
- The limericks in question could realistically get somebody fired or
So to understand better you are not offended by the limericks your are
concerned that you are inviting a lawsuit from someone who is offended?
Are you denying people an opportunity to uninstall the software? Do you
require people to use fortune to keep their job, and fail to inform them
of this when they began?
<>- I am realistically one of the many parties that could conceivably get
Unless you force an employee to use the software and you didn't not make
it clear they would be working with that software from the beginning you
can not be held liable, you can be sued but they would not win the
suite. In fact you can be sued at any time for any reason, the question
of liability is what determines who will win. I, for example, work in
the entertainment industry where such potentially offensive material is
worked on every day, our employees are not obliged to work on offensive
material, and/or have been informed of the content before being
employed. So they can not succeed in any law suite against us for having
such material online, or in an area where they may happen upon it. If
you do not follow the guidelines then fortune/cygwin is the least of
No one is being forced to read dirty limericks, and with out such force
dirty limericks are protected by freedom of speech. In all such cases
it is the responsibility of the viewer to stop viewing. I recommend
getting a laymans book on harassment in the workplace it seems you are
not very well informed in this area. I recommend "Sexual Harassment
Awareness Training: 60 Practical Activities for Trainers," however there
- Red Hat is even more realistically one of the many parties that couldThis, while considerably more plausible, is still not a valid argument
as Red Hat wave such warranty of responsibility in their license
agreement. And again they don't force anyone to use there software or
to read dirty limericks.
conceivably get sued.
- The limericks in question are installed without the knowledge or consentFrancis Litterio wrote:
of the installer.
The user does not know he is giving consent to installing fortune when
he is doing a full install of Cygwin. There are over 500 hundred
packages in a full Cygwin install.
This, in and of it self, is not a problem. You must first demonstrate
that such action can cause damage. As it is, every cygwin package can
be selected to be installed our not. Therefore, this is not a
meaningfully argument regardless if it where true or not.
- The limericks in question are of interest only to junior-highschool-ageThis is also a week argument, as it assumes we agree with your
subjective assessment of the limericks, which we don't. This also is
not a meaningfully argument regardless if it is true or not.
sysadmins and lawyers.
- Redacting the limericks in question from Cygwin will eliminate the riskYou have failed to demonstrate risk, and you have failed to demonstrate
that the limericks are the only risk. Who should be responsible for
reviewing and judging the risk level of the code? How much code must be
reviewed? To what standard should it be held? Shall Cygwin packagers
now warrant that the code is free from such potentially offensive material.
This is not at issue, and can be said for leaving the limericks in as well.
- Redacting the limericks in question from Cygwin has no realistic chance of
destroying Western democracies or throwing the world into an oppressive
[snip]I am not offended by the content (or lack there of), as you apparently
are, I am offended by censorship. My ability to correct the censorship
does not address my offense, where as your ability to remove the content
does address yours.
Additional, unnecessary, evaluation reveals that while you
have two options to address your offense, I would have none
if the tables were turned.
You could download the source and build it yourself. Just like you could
with all the software which isn't provided in the Cygwin distro. Most of
which contains no questionable material.
I think it is fairly clear. The limericks do not cause any direct
damage in the united states. We leave it to the user to decide such
issues in their own country, as they are most equipped to do so. Cygwin
maintainers do not wish to take on the responsibility of warranting the
software against objectionable or illegal use. We recommend that all
cygwin software be well documented in the installer so that users can
make proper judgments for themselves for every package. However, we
recognize that this is only a recommendation, and because cygwin
maintainers can make no warranties it is purely at their discretion that
these recommendations be implemented, beyond the current level.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html