Does Ubuntu need such artwork[1] ? Its probably someone's idea of a joke and is in poor taste but it has the Ubuntu logo and looks official for an older version. I would definitely *not* use (forget volunteering) Ubuntu in the first place if that was used to anywhere in the Ubuntu community or promote the OS. [1] http://bp1.blogger.com/_vPl4ID4L64Q/Rie68NCY33I/AAAAAAAAACU/1wTqKIr0whg/s1600-h/ubuntu_5-1.11.jpg -- Vid -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Vid to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Donna to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Donna Metzlar to Ubuntu-Women show details May 3 If you do a Google image search for "ubuntu" the first hit (for me in any case) is another bad taste image. http://xhpphx.stumbleupon.com/ I was made aware of this image about two years ago, by someone on another mailinglist I'm on, and ended up having a huge argument with a few of the men on the list who didn't find it at all offensive. Donna - Show quoted text - Vid Ayer wrote: > Does Ubuntu need such artwork[1] ? Its probably someone's idea of a > joke and is in poor taste but it has the Ubuntu logo and looks > official for an older version. > I would definitely *not* use (forget volunteering) Ubuntu in the first > place if that was used to anywhere in the Ubuntu community or promote > the OS. > > [1] > http://bp1.blogger.com/_vPl4ID4L64Q/Rie68NCY33I/AAAAAAAAACU/1wTqKIr0whg/s1600-h/ubuntu_5-1.11.jpg > > -- > Vid > > -- > ubuntu-women mailing list > ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women > -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Donna to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add t to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? t u to Ubuntu-Women show details May 3 All I can say is when I searched for ubuntu wallpapers thru Google Image in my workplace the other day, I had to minimize the window as fast as possible and than clear the browser cache... My wife was with me, and after those results, it was hard to explain to her that not all Ubuntu users are adolescent male bastards. PS. This is offtopic for now but, I'd like to see ubuntu-calendar revived. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-calendar/+bug/77289 -- - Show quoted text - ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite t to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Susana to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Susana Pereira to Ubuntu-Women show details May 3 Hi, The first artwork made for Ubuntu, during Warty development, tried to show the idea of "humanity" and contained some images with half-naked people. There was a great discussion about that[0], and they removed it from default. After that, there was a period where it was common to see "comic" sites referring to Ubuntu as Linux for naked people and featuring images related to sex. I believe it is called satire. Cheers, Susana Pereira [1]http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/ubuntu-traffic/u20041015_08.html#1 Qui, 2007-05-03 às 20:09 +0600, Vid Ayer escreveu: - Show quoted text - > Does Ubuntu need such artwork[1] ? Its probably someone's idea of a > joke and is in poor taste but it has the Ubuntu logo and looks > official for an older version. > I would definitely *not* use (forget volunteering) Ubuntu in the first > place if that was used to anywhere in the Ubuntu community or promote > the OS. > > [1] http://bp1.blogger.com/_vPl4ID4L64Q/Rie68NCY33I/AAAAAAAAACU/1wTqKIr0whg/s1600-h/ubuntu_5-1.11.jpg > > -- > Vid > -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Susana to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Danyelle to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Danyelle Gragsone to Ubuntu-Women show details May 3 agreed Susana. that and just shows what is on the minds of men 366 days of the year ;). - Show quoted text - On 5/3/07, Susana Pereira wrote: > Hi, > > The first artwork made for Ubuntu, during Warty development, tried to > show the idea of "humanity" and contained some images with half-naked > people. There was a great discussion about that[0], and they removed it > from default. > > After that, there was a period where it was common to see "comic" sites > referring to Ubuntu as Linux for naked people and featuring images > related to sex. > > I believe it is called satire. > > Cheers, > > Susana Pereira > > [1]http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/ubuntu-traffic/u20041015_08.html#1 > > > > Qui, 2007-05-03 às 20:09 +0600, Vid Ayer escreveu: > > Does Ubuntu need such artwork[1] ? Its probably someone's idea of a > > joke and is in poor taste but it has the Ubuntu logo and looks > > official for an older version. > > I would definitely *not* use (forget volunteering) Ubuntu in the first > > place if that was used to anywhere in the Ubuntu community or promote > > the OS. > > > > [1] http://bp1.blogger.com/_vPl4ID4L64Q/Rie68NCY33I/AAAAAAAAACU/1wTqKIr0whg/s1600-h/ubuntu_5-1.11.jpg > > > > -- > > Vid > > > > > -- > ubuntu-women mailing list > ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women > -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Danyelle to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Caroline to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Caroline Ford to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 16:45 +0200, Donna Metzlar wrote: > If you do a Google image search for "ubuntu" the first hit (for me in any > case) is another bad taste image. > > http://xhpphx.stumbleupon.com/ > > I was made aware of this image about two years ago, by someone on another > mailinglist I'm on, and ended up having a huge argument with a few of the > men on the list who didn't find it at all offensive. > > Donna > > Vid Ayer wrote: > > Does Ubuntu need such artwork[1] ? Its probably someone's idea of a > > joke and is in poor taste but it has the Ubuntu logo and looks > > official for an older version. > > I would definitely *not* use (forget volunteering) Ubuntu in the first > > place if that was used to anywhere in the Ubuntu community or promote > > the OS. > > > > [1] > > http://bp1.blogger.com/_vPl4ID4L64Q/Rie68NCY33I/AAAAAAAAACU/1wTqKIr0whg/s1600-h/ubuntu_5-1.11.jpg The second one is fine and I guess dates from Ubuntu calendar. I'd consider that to be art about humanity. The first is just cleavage. I don't consider naked people to be porn or offensive. I know someone left abuse on my blog that I'm *supposed to* be in favour of censoring things, but I'm really not. The first image lacks artistic merit, however. Caroline -- - Show quoted text - ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Caroline to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Danyelle to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Danyelle Gragsone to caroline.ford.., Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 I guess hanging around boys as much as I do.. I really never took offense to it. Guys will be guys.. who will post pics of womens boobs. I agree with Caroline it just doesn't fit into what ubuntu was trying to do. - Show quoted text - On 5/3/07, Caroline Ford wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 16:45 +0200, Donna Metzlar wrote: > > If you do a Google image search for "ubuntu" the first hit (for me in any > > case) is another bad taste image. > > > > http://xhpphx.stumbleupon.com/ > > > > I was made aware of this image about two years ago, by someone on another > > mailinglist I'm on, and ended up having a huge argument with a few of the > > men on the list who didn't find it at all offensive. > > > > Donna > > > > Vid Ayer wrote: > > > Does Ubuntu need such artwork[1] ? Its probably someone's idea of a > > > joke and is in poor taste but it has the Ubuntu logo and looks > > > official for an older version. > > > I would definitely *not* use (forget volunteering) Ubuntu in the first > > > place if that was used to anywhere in the Ubuntu community or promote > > > the OS. > > > > > > [1] > > > http://bp1.blogger.com/_vPl4ID4L64Q/Rie68NCY33I/AAAAAAAAACU/1wTqKIr0whg/s1600-h/ubuntu_5-1.11.jpg > > The second one is fine and I guess dates from Ubuntu calendar. I'd > consider that to be art about humanity. The first is just cleavage. > > I don't consider naked people to be porn or offensive. I know someone > left abuse on my blog that I'm *supposed to* be in favour of censoring > things, but I'm really not. > > The first image lacks artistic merit, however. > > Caroline > > > -- > ubuntu-women mailing list > ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women > -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Danyelle to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add t to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? t u to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 Danyelle Gragsone wrote: > I guess hanging around boys as much as I do.. I really never took > offense to it. Guys will be guys.. who will post pics of womens > boobs. I agree with Caroline it just doesn't fit into what ubuntu was > trying to do. Normalizing this kind of practices is part of the hegemonic system. Not only does it make it easier for men to practice whatever the practice is, it also causes women to perceive it as normal, creating a kind of internalized oppression that suppresses any chance of resistance. As you mention, "guys will be guys". The logical chain of thought goes on to suggest that 1. it is normal for sexualized pictures of women to appear on search results for "ubuntu wallpaper" to appear on Google. 2. it is normal not to resist such images 3. There is nothing one can / should do about it Another example of this was previously discussed. Young American women are used to be called "guys" when they are in groups, and they do call each other "guys" during conversation: it is "normal". At the same time, it is a disguised way of excluding women from the conversation... In short, if one normalizes oppression, one cannot resist against it... PS. I think the previous posters pointed out these pictures as offensive, and I agree: [disclaimer: links go to sexualized + objectifying pics of women -not work-safe] http://blog.levhita.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/ubuntu-logo.jpg http://bp1.blogger.com/_vPl4ID4L64Q/Rie68NCY33I/AAAAAAAAACU/1wTqKIr0whg/s1600-h/ubuntu_5-1.11.jpg Caroline said one of the pictures -"the first one" (?) was not offensive, but I couldn't understand which picture she was referring to. Any clarifications and some more explanation would be nice :) PSS. Seems like no one is interested in the revival of the ubuntu-calendar package?[1] [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-calendar/+bug/77289 -- - Show quoted text - ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite t to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Caroline to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Caroline Ford to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 - Show quoted text - On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 23:33 -0400, t u wrote: > Danyelle Gragsone wrote: > > I guess hanging around boys as much as I do.. I really never took > > offense to it. Guys will be guys.. who will post pics of womens > > boobs. I agree with Caroline it just doesn't fit into what ubuntu was > > trying to do. > > Normalizing this kind of practices is part of the hegemonic system. Not > only does it make it easier for men to practice whatever the practice > is, it also causes women to perceive it as normal, creating a kind of > internalized oppression that suppresses any chance of resistance. > > As you mention, "guys will be guys". The logical chain of thought goes > on to suggest that > 1. it is normal for sexualized pictures of women to appear on search > results for "ubuntu wallpaper" to appear on Google. > 2. it is normal not to resist such images > 3. There is nothing one can / should do about it > > Another example of this was previously discussed. Young American women > are used to be called "guys" when they are in groups, and they do call > each other "guys" during conversation: it is "normal". At the same time, > it is a disguised way of excluding women from the conversation... > > In short, if one normalizes oppression, one cannot resist against it... > > PS. I think the previous posters pointed out these pictures as > offensive, and I agree: > [disclaimer: links go to sexualized + objectifying pics of women -not > work-safe] > http://blog.levhita.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/ubuntu-logo.jpg > http://bp1.blogger.com/_vPl4ID4L64Q/Rie68NCY33I/AAAAAAAAACU/1wTqKIr0whg/s1600-h/ubuntu_5-1.11.jpg > > Caroline said one of the pictures -"the first one" (?) was not > offensive, but I couldn't understand which picture she was referring to. > Any clarifications and some more explanation would be nice :) > > PSS. Seems like no one is interested in the revival of the > ubuntu-calendar package?[1] > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-calendar/+bug/77289 > I think the breasts one is offensive - but the multicoloured bottom one is tasteful and artistic. Caroline - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Caroline to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Vid to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Vid Ayer to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 Hi, Responding to many in a single mail... On 5/4/07, Danyelle Gragsone wrote: > I guess hanging around boys as much as I do.. I really never took > offense to it. Guys will be guys.. who will post pics of womens ..[snip] Please do not top-post. Too many people are doing this ... folks, please read : http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists/etiquette, especially the part on "Proper quoting". Its not very difficult to snip irrelevant parts when replying to another persons message. I think members on this list are intelligent, polite and helpful enough to police themselves :) On 5/3/07, Donna Metzlar wrote: > If you do a Google image search for "ubuntu" the first hit (for me in any > case) is another bad taste image. > > http://xhpphx.stumbleupon.com/ > On 5/4/07, t u wrote: > > PS. I think the previous posters pointed out these pictures as > offensive, and I agree: > [disclaimer: links go to sexualized + objectifying pics of women -not > work-safe] > http://blog.levhita.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/ubuntu-logo.jpg The purpose of complaining/raising this issue was to raise awareness and possiblly generate enough mass to stop "objectifying women" to promote Ubuntu as a product. It was "not" meant to encourage people to post more links of tasteless pictures of women(or men), even if considered artistic and tasteful by some. Offensive material (or worse) is all over the internet and in other visual/print media which is not the point here. The moot point is : Does UbuntuLinux need to be promoted at the cost of being offensive and/or using women (as objects) in a negative way ? Does the Ubuntu community (read: us) need to approve it under the guise of "freedom/art/insert adjective of choice..."? If you agree that the pictures are : - offensive, tasteless, etc... - objectify women, - not the right way for Ubuntu to go, and want to do something about it, please suggest the next step/path to take. On 5/4/07, Caroline Ford wrote: > > I think the breasts one is offensive - but the multicoloured bottom one > is tasteful and artistic. > Sensibilities vary across cultures and imho, Ubuntu would be better off concentrating on the technical advantages than resorting to gimmicks to promote itself. Echoing others here, I too dont find anything funny or artistic about using women's bodies to promote a product. Coming from a marketing background, I assure you that Ubuntu will not be taken seriously, atleast not if it wants to be on every Indian/Asian desktops. I can just imagine the reactions of parents, teachers and others (folks in the corporate arena) and all the explaining that I will have to do when I handout CD's with those offensive pictures on the jacketcover. Do I want to promote UbuntuLinux at the cost of my personal reputation ?...I guess not. -- Vid - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Vid to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Romana to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Romana Branden to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 On 5/4/07, Vid Ayer wrote: > Hi, > > Responding to many in a single mail... > > On 5/4/07, Danyelle Gragsone wrote: > > I guess hanging around boys as much as I do.. I really never took > > offense to it. Guys will be guys.. who will post pics of womens > ..[snip] > > Please do not top-post. Too many people are doing this ... folks, > please read : http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailinglists/etiquette, > especially the part on "Proper quoting". Its not very difficult to > snip irrelevant parts when replying to another persons message. I > think members on this list are intelligent, polite and helpful enough > to police themselves :) for gmail users, this is a standard annoyance and one of the few issues i have with it. there is a greasemonkey script for firefox that sets up bottom posting in replying - unless it is html email, which is a scourge and an abomination anyway;))) http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/8041 its one of my fave gmail addons ever - and i have several! back to the topic.... r:) -- -o) Romana Branden /\ \ Nothing - well, thats something. _\_V http://timelady.com/blog/ - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Romana to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Danyelle to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Danyelle Gragsone to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 Sorry I had no clue what top posting or bottom posting.. or whatever any of that stuff means until my husband explained it to me. I just hit reply... I am not even going to ask the question whats the difference.. but thanks for the heads up. Danyelle. - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Danyelle to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add priti to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? priti patil to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 (7 days ago) hi, Agree with Vid... Having a lovely family with small kid even I wouldn't boot my desktop and/or handover Ubuntu CD with such offensive stuff to my family members and friends, that too at the cost of my *reputation* NEVER !! If ubuntu don't want to loose users at least in Indian scenario, better it should respect cultural values and traditions, GLOBALLY !! > Coming from a marketing background, I assure you > that Ubuntu will not > be taken seriously, atleast not if it wants to be on > every > Indian/Asian desktops. I can just imagine the > reactions of parents, > teachers and others (folks in the corporate arena) > and all the > explaining that I will have to do when I handout > CD's with those > offensive pictures on the jacketcover. Do I want to > promote > UbuntuLinux at the cost of my personal reputation > ?...I guess not. > > -- > Vid > > -- > ubuntu-women mailing list > ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women > --Priti __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite priti to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Matthias to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Matthias Urlichs to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 (7 days ago) Hi, priti patil: > If ubuntu don't want to loose users at least in Indian > scenario, better it should respect cultural values and > traditions, GLOBALLY !! > While I agree that cleavage or naked bottoms are not appropriate, the probem with cultural values is that there are so many of them. The "normal" Ubuntu CD covers are offensive to some people (OMG "naked" female faces!!!). (Or male faces for that matter, if you happen to be Tuareg.) So where do we, as a community, draw the line? Not have images of people on the cover, when the whole idea of Ubuntu *is* about people? IMHO the line should be one of *disrespect*. Thus, the cleavage picture is not OK. Conversely, the Ubuntu Calendar pictures are, even though you can see a lot more skin. I'm not advocating that we push the Calendar down peoples' throats, of course. After all, our main goal should be to fix bug#1... -- Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | smurf@smurf.noris.de - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Matthias to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add priti to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? priti patil to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 (7 days ago) Hi, I don't understand, why we're wasting our time discussing about controversial pictures when there are hell amount of descent pictures (*including* people's) are available everywhere ?? Priti - Show quoted text - --- Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > priti patil: > > If ubuntu don't want to loose users at least in > Indian > > scenario, better it should respect cultural values > and > > traditions, GLOBALLY !! > > > While I agree that cleavage or naked bottoms are not > appropriate, > the probem with cultural values is that there are so > many of them. > > The "normal" Ubuntu CD covers are offensive to some > people (OMG "naked" > female faces!!!). (Or male faces for that matter, if > you happen to be > Tuareg.) > > So where do we, as a community, draw the line? Not > have images of people > on the cover, when the whole idea of Ubuntu *is* > about people? > > IMHO the line should be one of *disrespect*. Thus, > the cleavage picture > is not OK. Conversely, the Ubuntu Calendar pictures > are, even though you > can see a lot more skin. > > I'm not advocating that we push the Calendar down > peoples' throats, of > course. After all, our main goal should be to fix > bug#1... > > -- > Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de > | smurf@smurf.noris.de > > -- > ubuntu-women mailing list > ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- - Show quoted text - ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite priti to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Lorraine to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Lorraine Masipa to ubuntu-women show details May 4 (7 days ago) Hi all, I agree with all the everyone that thinks this is insensitive to women and also it will affect the way UBUNTU is viewed especially by corporates. I'm from South Africa and a few months the the SA government approved a free and open source strategy and that government would migrate its current software to free and open source software. I work for an organisation called IMPI LINUX which offers enterprise OSS solutions based on UBUNTU to public and private sector. I do not think such "artwork" will assist any of us in our endeavour to promote use of OSS specifically UBUNTU within corporate environments. www.impilinux.com On Friday 04 May 2007 09:47:14 ubuntu-women-request@lists.ubuntu.com wrote: > > http://bp1.blogger.com/_vPl4ID4L64Q/Rie68NCY33I/AAAAAAAAACU/1wTqKIr0whg/s16 >00-h/ubuntu_5-1.11.jpg - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Lorraine to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Elizabeth to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Elizabeth Bevilacqua to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 (7 days ago) People are getting quite upset and I want to make sure we are clear as to what is Official in Ubuntu and what is not. The image links are possibly NWS. === Official === http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/4.10RC-images/screenshot-gdm.png http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/4.10RC-images/screenshot-gnomesplash.png http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/4.10RC-images/screenshot-background.png Still included in the ubuntu-calendar package. These are the ones that we can speak up about if we feel the need, but it's already been hashed out quite thoroughly. Susana posted that great link about the discussion back in 2004: http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/ubuntu-traffic/u20041015_08.html#1 === Not official === As Susana explained, after the above "calendar" images came out, people not involved with ubuntu started making jokes about how "Ubuntu uses naked people to promote their OS" - the following are a couple of those images. http://bp1.blogger.com/_vPl4ID4L64Q/Rie68NCY33I/AAAAAAAAACU/1wTqKIr0whg/s1600-h/ubuntu_5-1.11.jpg http://blog.levhita.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/ubuntu-logo.jpg Aside from expressing our displeasure at people putting such images online, there really isn't much we can do about the non-official ones. Ubuntu is NOT using these two in an Official capacity to promote the OS. -- Elizabeth Bevilacqua // Lyz@PrincessLeia.com http://www.princessleia.com - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Elizabeth to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Micah to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Micah Cowan to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 (7 days ago) Lorraine Masipa wrote: > Hi all, > > I agree with all the everyone that thinks this is insensitive to women and > also it will affect the way UBUNTU is viewed especially by corporates. I'm > from South Africa and a few months the the SA government approved a free and > open source strategy and that government would migrate its current software > to free and open source software. > > I work for an organisation called IMPI LINUX which offers enterprise OSS > solutions based on UBUNTU to public and private sector. I do not think > such "artwork" will assist any of us in our endeavour to promote use of OSS > specifically UBUNTU within corporate environments. Hi Lorraine, I suspect you misunderstand: this image is /not/ official Ubuntu artwork in any way, and no one is proposing that it should be accepted as such. It was just somebody's idea of a joke, apparently. -Micah - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Micah to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Jan to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Jan Claeys to ubuntu-women show details May 4 (7 days ago) Op vrijdag 04-05-2007 om 12:27 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Matthias Urlichs: > IMHO the line should be one of *disrespect*. Thus, the cleavage > picture is not OK. Shouldn't we leave the judgement about disrespect or not to the 3 girls involved? -- Jan Claeys - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Jan to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add t to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? t u to Ubuntu-Women show details May 4 (7 days ago) Vid Ayer wrote: > On 5/4/07, t u wrote: >> PS. I think the previous posters pointed out these pictures as >> offensive, and I agree: >> [disclaimer: links go to sexualized + objectifying pics of women -not >> work-safe] >> http://blog.levhita.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/ubuntu-logo.jpg [text selectively deleted by Vid Ayer] > The purpose of complaining/raising this issue was to raise awareness > and possiblly generate enough mass to stop "objectifying women" to > promote Ubuntu as a product. It was "not" meant to encourage people > to post more links of tasteless pictures of women(or men), even if > considered artistic and tasteful by some. Offensive material (or > worse) is all over the internet and in other visual/print media which > is not the point here. If instead of trying to respond to everyone in one single email you read what they (in this case, I) wrote, you would have known that my links pointed to the very same pictures OPs posted and that I used these links to ask for clarification. - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite t to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Vid to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Vid Ayer to Ubuntu-Women show details May 5 (6 days ago) On 5/4/07, Elizabeth Bevilacqua wrote: > > People are getting quite upset and I want to make sure we are clear as > to what is Official in Ubuntu and what is not. Ubuntu is still about the community, who get to decide what constitutes every aspect of this OS with openness and transparency in discussions. If many women (and men) don't approve or feel strongly about the way women are being portayed by Ubuntu (even if it is not official), then we need to listen to "diversity" too as Ubuntu is about humanity after all. > === Official === > > Still included in the ubuntu-calendar package. To be clear, I was not discussing the ubuntu-calendar package. It just got added/mixed in the discussion like it usually happens on a list. > These are the ones that we can speak up about if we feel the need, but > it's already been hashed out quite thoroughly. Susana posted that great > link about the discussion back in 2004: > > http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/ubuntu-traffic/u20041015_08.html#1 hmm... remember reading that while lurking around in Feb 2005 (Mako even had it on his site/blog, but I dont have the URL now). > === Not official === > > Aside from expressing our displeasure at people putting such images > online, there really isn't much we can do about the non-official ones. Not exactly, there is a lot that Ubuntu/Canonical can do in this regard. See Ubuntu's trademark policy[0]. While it encourages "community advocacy", this freedom could be misused (here to depict women as in that first link). It is significant since Canonical has reduced the number of CD's being shipped, rather encourages people to burn/download it themselves. So for example: A picture that has the Ubuntu logo, does look "official" at first glance to any lay person getting a CD with that jacketcover. AFAIK, anyone receiving CD's this way may/maynot be interested in researching if the picture on a jacket cover comes from an official repository or not. So does it mean that anyone can create tasteless pictures of women, slap the ubuntu logo on it {from [0]}, burn CD's (non-commercially) and we do nothing because its non-official, no money exchanged hands and was within trademark policy ? Next, the para on "Commentary and parody" [0] [quote] In any event, once a project has left the open source project phase or otherwise become a commercial project, this policy does not authorize any use of the Trademarks in connection to that project. [/unquote] This line does not mention anything about non-commercial stuff. Does that mean its ok for non-commercial works to use pictures of women as they deem fit. I am not a legal eagle but I hope folks see the pandora's box all of this opens ? [0] http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy > Ubuntu is NOT using these two in an Official capacity to promote the OS. It does not have to (in an official capacity), but it can still be misused (see above note) in many ways. IMO, freedom and creativity should be encouraged but when it oversteps a majority of peoples sensibilities, in this case we are talking about half the world's population, different cultures/nationality, etc.. we need to step back and think, again. -- Vid http://wiki.ubuntu-women.org/VidAyer - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Vid to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Micah to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Micah Cowan to Ubuntu-Women show details May 5 (6 days ago) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Vid Ayer wrote: > On 5/4/07, Elizabeth Bevilacqua wrote: >> People are getting quite upset and I want to make sure we are clear as >> to what is Official in Ubuntu and what is not. > > Ubuntu is still about the community, who get to decide what > constitutes every aspect of this OS with openness and transparency in > discussions. If many women (and men) don't approve or feel strongly > about the way women are being portayed by Ubuntu (even if it is not > official), then we need to listen to "diversity" too as Ubuntu is > about humanity after all. What makes you think that this portrayal was by Ubuntu? My strong suspicion is that the people who created the artwork (at least, for the first link) were not Ubunteros. If this is the case, I really don't see what you can propose should be done. You can't simply stop people from making such expressions, whether you find them to be tasteful or otherwise. I'm fairly certain that you'll find such depictions to fall under the protected realm of parody, which is quite sufficient to prevent Canonical, trademark holders though they may be, from preventing it. Even if they happen to be Ubuntu users, I don't think there's much we could do. If they happen to be official members of the community, then we could consider a suspension of membership, but otherwise... > So does it mean that anyone can create tasteless pictures of women, > slap the ubuntu logo on it {from [0]}, burn CD's (non-commercially) > and we do nothing because its non-official, no money exchanged hands > and was within trademark policy ? This is completely different, assuming that they portray these as officially sanctioned, and AFAIK could absolutely be actioned against, as it would fall well outside of parody and into trademark breach. If it were to happen with a small, private group, amongst themselves as a sort of joke, though, it would probably still qualify as parody. But until we actually have a known case of this happening that someone wants to object to, I don't see much point in debating the theory of whether or not it would be right/wrong/legal/illegal. People create things that other people find offensive, all the time. I'm sure that the pictures in car windows of a certain rebellious lad urinating on various rival car manufacturers' logos, for instance, are far more offensive to those rival companies than any of these linked graphics are to us. If those manufacturers are unable to do anything about it, I'm not sure what Canonical or the Ubuntu community can be expected to do about this. (Any statements I've made regarding the law is of course only as I understand it. I could absolutely be wrong about everything I just said; I'm not a lawyer. This is just based on my limited understanding of somebody else's field.) - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGPCZO7M8hyUobTrERAlEvAJ9fbnGroVFbvJQYXLX4GSXwv8edpgCfeVXy /5890nB2809Md4LPX0AU8BQ= =s9tn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Micah to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Vid to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Vid Ayer to Ubuntu-Women show details May 5 (6 days ago) On 5/4/07, Danyelle Gragsone wrote: > Sorry I had no clue what top posting or bottom posting.. or whatever > any of that stuff means until my husband explained it to me. I just > hit reply... I understand that :) Most women/men would not even know why its important and what it means ..... one of the reasons why we are not strict (read, poke people on the list very often about it, as discussions tend to get tangential thereafter.) > > I am not even going to ask the question whats the difference.. but > thanks for the heads up. You can (should) ask :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting .... hope that helps. -- Vid http://wiki.ubuntu-women.org/VidAyer -- - Show quoted text - ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Vid to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add t to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? t u to Ubuntu-Women show details May 5 (6 days ago) Vid Ayer wrote: >> === Not official === >> >> Aside from expressing our displeasure at people putting such images >> online, there really isn't much we can do about the non-official ones. > > Not exactly, there is a lot that Ubuntu/Canonical can do in this > regard. See Ubuntu's trademark policy[0]. While it encourages > "community advocacy", this freedom could be misused (here to depict > women as in that first link). Are you proposing that Canonical should go after the "creators" / replicators (because, in fact, they do not create anything) of those images via trademark lawsuits? Let alone the economic aspect of such an undertaking, and let alone the impossibility of it (e.g. going after individuals), can you imagine the bad PR it would bring to a brand-new company that relies mainly on its own community? There is nothing Canonical can do about this kind of crap but coordinate with women's organizations in order to educate ("raise awareness") its *own* userbase. And that kind of education is extremely hard to accomplish -people prefer to remain ignorant when that ignorance is functional in maintaining their own (and sometimes others') power/privileges-... And for a small company like Canonical, I would think that such coordination is not yet economically feasible (they have only 30-so people, most of which are developers). Till then, the responsibility falls on the (volunteering) members of this team, at *least* for the issue of gender. > IMO, freedom and creativity should be encouraged but when it oversteps > a majority of peoples sensibilities, in this case we are talking about > half the world's population, different cultures/nationality, etc.. we > need to step back and think, again. I don't think this paragraph makes much sense. You are talking about self-censorship, which is as good as censorship. When freedom and creativity starts to step on other people's human rights, they cease to exist anyway, and metamorphose into (usually) heterosexist/white supremacist/patriarchal/(neo)colonialist/capitalist discourses with specific functions of easing some kind of oppression... Hence, to me, one has to constantly be aware that her/his own work may function as an oppressive discourse (a discourse that produces & reproduces some kind of oppression). Unfortunately, mostly due to the reason I mentioned above (about ignorance), most people are pretty much unwilling to look at their own "creations" (sic) from such a perspective. The starting point for an action against this, to me, is to teach them about various ways of oppression (unless you decide to organize a strike-like protest). Now, how do you teach a population that strongly prefers to stay ignorant and hence comfortable? I do not know... - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite t to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Vid to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Vid Ayer to Ubuntu-Women show details May 5 (6 days ago) On 5/5/07, Micah Cowan wrote: > What makes you think that this portrayal was by Ubuntu? My strong > suspicion is that the people who created the artwork (at least, for the > first link) were not Ubunteros. ... that is why its not raised on the ubuntu-art list > I'm fairly certain that > you'll find such depictions to fall under the protected realm of parody, > which is quite sufficient to prevent Canonical, trademark holders though > they may be, from preventing it. Does it mean that the current TM-policy document actually encourages the negative portrayal of women under the protected realm of parody ? - even if many voices (users and community volunteers) find it disrespectful, tasteless and unnecessary ? Now, that sounds disturbing... > This is completely different, assuming that they portray these as > officially sanctioned, and AFAIK could absolutely be actioned against, > as it would fall well outside of parody and into trademark breach. If it > were to happen with a small, private group, amongst themselves as a sort > of joke, though, it would probably still qualify as parody. .... TBH, now I am confused if you are pro- (or against) such images using the Ubuntu logos prominently *or* whether you are suggesting that such images are normal and women should get used to being portrayed as "objects", hence not complain ? > But until we > actually have a known case of this happening that someone wants to > object to, I don't see much point in debating the theory of whether or > not it would be right/wrong/legal/illegal. Responses like "why should we do anything unless someone complains", "its freedom/parody/humor/...", simply reiterates the "be silent, don't question us" misogynist attitude towards women. Is it any surprise that women still hesitate to speak up frankly or initiate discussions on issues which concern them. If I understand correctly this thread has many men and women expressing their displeasure / objections ... what more does it take to be heard ? FWIW, the response of peers on another distro list was a lot more positive and speaks volumes (to their credit). Sadly UW has a long way to go ... -- Vid - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Vid to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Vid to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Vid Ayer to Ubuntu-Women show details May 5 (6 days ago) On 5/5/07, t u wrote: > > Are you proposing that Canonical should go after the "creators" / I cant say (or decide) who should go after whom ? The point remains : If tasteless pictures of women are being used with Ubuntu logo's prominently splashed across, it looks official. If people can get away with such things with some help from the TM policy, its time the Ubuntu community re-looked at policies it adopts, which de facto allows women to be portrayed negatively. > -people prefer to remain ignorant when that ignorance is functional in > maintaining their own (and sometimes others') power/privileges-... ... Amen :) -- Vid - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Vid to chat Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Micah to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Micah Cowan to Ubuntu-Women show details May 5 (6 days ago) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Vid Ayer wrote: > On 5/5/07, t u wrote: >> Are you proposing that Canonical should go after the "creators" / > > I cant say (or decide) who should go after whom ? > The point remains : If tasteless pictures of women are being used with > Ubuntu logo's prominently splashed across, it looks official. If > people can get away with such things with some help from the TM > policy, its time the Ubuntu community re-looked at policies it adopts, > which de facto allows women to be portrayed negatively. Well, now, this is an important distinction. If it does look official, and could be misconstrued as official, then it would fall outside of parody, and be fair game for trademark suits. It does not, to me, appear anything like official, though, particularly in the context in which it was found, and I think you'd have a hard case to show that it was, which is why I've been arguing that Canonical's hands are tied in this matter. - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGPPkJ7M8hyUobTrERAiW8AJ98ad4cz+qOMSPug7Brovg8IMtjrgCfSs5S 7bjHlHEColU3mb2vKXuEOyc= =3d1O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Micah to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Micah to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Micah Cowan to Ubuntu-Women show details May 5 (6 days ago) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Vid Ayer wrote: >> I'm fairly certain that >> you'll find such depictions to fall under the protected realm of parody, >> which is quite sufficient to prevent Canonical, trademark holders though >> they may be, from preventing it. > > Does it mean that the current TM-policy document actually encourages > the negative portrayal of women under the protected realm of parody ? It means that it does not /matter/ what the TM-policy document says. There is nothing legally Canonical can do, no matter how much it might speak against it in some document, to undermine that legal protection. At least, in my country and perhaps some others (this may be a very US-specific claim that I'm making; I know that parody is not protected in all countries, at least). Now, if it were truly clear-cut, from a legal standpoint, that the artwork presents a negative portrayal of women, you could possibly sue the creators on grounds other than trademark. But that would still have nothing to do with Canonical or Ubuntu; it'd probably need to be a class-action lawsuit on the behalf of womankind. >> This is completely different, assuming that they portray these as >> officially sanctioned, and AFAIK could absolutely be actioned against, >> as it would fall well outside of parody and into trademark breach. If it >> were to happen with a small, private group, amongst themselves as a sort >> of joke, though, it would probably still qualify as parody. > > .... TBH, now I am confused if you are pro- (or against) such images > using the Ubuntu logos prominently *or* whether you are suggesting > that such images are normal and women should get used to being > portrayed as "objects", hence not complain ? Where in the world did you get such a notion? I am simply stating how I understand the law to apply to it (though, again, this is probably specific to the US). I have not once revealed my own views on the graphics, and given your apparent interest in arguing ad hominem, depending on what you discover my viewpoint to be, I hardly see how it would be constructive. What /is/ clear, however, is that there is a wide range of opinion on the graphics, and the very fact of its offensiveness seems to be controversial, as some women have already expressed the opinion that they don't find it particularly offensive/degrading. >> But until we >> actually have a known case of this happening that someone wants to >> object to, I don't see much point in debating the theory of whether or >> not it would be right/wrong/legal/illegal. > > Responses like "why should we do anything unless someone complains", > "its freedom/parody/humor/...", simply reiterates the "be silent, > don't question us" misogynist attitude towards women. Who is arguing any such thing? I'm not saying "we shouldn't do anything unless someone complains:" clearly, people are complaining (about the artwork). I'm saying we shouldn't do anything about things that haven't happened (passing this artwork off as official). To be crystal clear: I am not and have not been arguing about whether or not the artwork is demeaning, degrading, or offensive. I am also not arguing about whether or not Ubuntu or Canonical should permit it. What I have been arguing, is that Canonical has no legal authority to forbid it, and so it is moot to argue the other points. I am somewhat saddened that you seem now to have taken the tactic of reading into my words, whatever you wish them to say, rather than what they actually do say, and therefore I don't think it will be wise to continue discussing it with you. I really do wish you well, and hope that other conversations we may have, on this forum or others, will be more productive ones. - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGPPvj7M8hyUobTrERAiYCAJ0dJoCARlWPtgd1Zev13f+OzC8xmwCgh6h8 jwHEP2vr7BHU6ibkeztNHlg= =yDhO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - Show quoted text - -- ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women Reply Forward Invite Micah to Gmail Reply Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add Romana to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled? Romana Branden to Ubuntu-Women show details May 6 (5 days ago) - Show quoted text - On 5/6/07, Micah Cowan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Vid Ayer wrote: > > >> I'm fairly certain that > >> you'll find such depictions to fall under the protected realm of parody, > >> which is quite sufficient to prevent Canonical, trademark holders though > >> they may be, from preventing it. > > > > Does it mean that the current TM-policy document actually encourages > > the negative portrayal of women under the protected realm of parody ? > > It means that it does not /matter/ what the TM-policy document says. > There is nothing legally Canonical can do, no matter how much it might > speak against it in some document, to undermine that legal protection. > At least, in my country and perhaps some others (this may be a very > US-specific claim that I'm making; I know that parody is not protected > in all countries, at least). > > Now, if it were truly clear-cut, from a legal standpoint, that the > artwork presents a negative portrayal of women, you could possibly sue > the creators on grounds other than trademark. But that would still have > nothing to do with Canonical or Ubuntu; it'd probably need to be a > class-action lawsuit on the behalf of womankind. > > >> This is completely different, assuming that they portray these as > >> officially sanctioned, and AFAIK could absolutely be actioned against, > >> as it would fall well outside of parody and into trademark breach. If it > >> were to happen with a small, private group, amongst themselves as a sort > >> of joke, though, it would probably still qualify as parody. > > > > .... TBH, now I am confused if you are pro- (or against) such images > > using the Ubuntu logos prominently *or* whether you are suggesting > > that such images are normal and women should get used to being > > portrayed as "objects", hence not complain ? > > Where in the world did you get such a notion? I am simply stating how I > understand the law to apply to it (though, again, this is probably > specific to the US). > > I have not once revealed my own views on the graphics, and given your > apparent interest in arguing ad hominem, depending on what you discover > my viewpoint to be, I hardly see how it would be constructive. > > What /is/ clear, however, is that there is a wide range of opinion on > the graphics, and the very fact of its offensiveness seems to be > controversial, as some women have already expressed the opinion that > they don't find it particularly offensive/degrading. > > >> But until we > >> actually have a known case of this happening that someone wants to > >> object to, I don't see much point in debating the theory of whether or > >> not it would be right/wrong/legal/illegal. > > > > Responses like "why should we do anything unless someone complains", > > "its freedom/parody/humor/...", simply reiterates the "be silent, > > don't question us" misogynist attitude towards women. > > Who is arguing any such thing? I'm not saying "we shouldn't do anything > unless someone complains:" clearly, people are complaining (about the > artwork). I'm saying we shouldn't do anything about things that haven't > happened (passing this artwork off as official). > > To be crystal clear: I am not and have not been arguing about whether or > not the artwork is demeaning, degrading, or offensive. I am also not > arguing about whether or not Ubuntu or Canonical should permit it. What > I have been arguing, is that Canonical has no legal authority to forbid > it, and so it is moot to argue the other points. > > I am somewhat saddened that you seem now to have taken the tactic of > reading into my words, whatever you wish them to say, rather than what > they actually do say, and therefore I don't think it will be wise to > continue discussing it with you. I really do wish you well, and hope > that other conversations we may have, on this forum or others, will be > more productive ones. > > - -- > Micah J. Cowan > Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... > http://micah.cowan.name/ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFGPPvj7M8hyUobTrERAiYCAJ0dJoCARlWPtgd1Zev13f+OzC8xmwCgh6h8 > jwHEP2vr7BHU6ibkeztNHlg= > =yDhO > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > ubuntu-women mailing list > ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women > I really really loathe the way these things ALWAYS degrade into this kind of situation. Can we not rise above this, and respect each other's opinion, despite disagreeing? And turn it back into a debate? -- -o) Romana Branden /\ \ Nothing - well, thats something. _\_V http://timelady.com/blog/ -- - Show quoted text - ubuntu-women mailing list ubuntu-women@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-women