Update

censorship.md

@@ -16,6 +16,18 @@ Sometimes it is not 100% clear which action constitutes censorship: for example
 
 There exist **tools for bypassing censorship**, e.g. [proxies](proxy.md) or encrypted and/or distributed, censorship-resistant networks such as [Tor](tor.md), [Freenet](freenet.md), [I2P](i2p.md) or [torrent](torrent.md) file sharing. Watch out: using such tools may be illegal or at least make you look suspicious and be targeted harder by the surveillance.
 
+## Example Of Bordeline Case: Is It Censorship Or Not?
+
+Let's take a look at a borderline case which some may see as censorship and some not, and let's try to resolve the situation, provided we are anti-censorship, i.e. we want to minimize censorship. Note here we will NOT be giving arguments for or against censorship, we just assume the reader is already against censorship (of course many readers may disagree but discussion of this question is left for another section).
+
+Say we want to create a [GNU](gnu.md) style repository of strictly [free software](free_software.md) in which we won't include any proprietary software but also any free software that likely leads to running proprietary software, such as [Wine](wine.md) (software that allows running [Windows](windows.md) programs on non-Windows systems). Let's assume that technically adding Wine to the repository would be very easy, but we decide not to do it because its primary purpose is to run Windows only programs which are typically proprietary and this violates our inclusion policy. I.e. we'll leave out any arguments about resources and technicalities and will only focus on the question of policy and its implementation. Is this censorship or not? Some say yes because, by definition, we are hiding something from the people, while others say this isn't censorship e.g. because we are making a SELECTION of software and we are clear about what it includes.
+
+(Note that argumenting e.g. by not wanting to support unethical software, protecting the users or "having the right to do whatever we like with our property" can't be used here because these are just pro-censorship arguments, they don't argue we aren't implementing censorship, they just try to give justification for why we SHOULD or CAN implement censorship.)
+
+The truth is probably in the middle: it is censorship to some degree but not a blatant "full 100%" aggressive one. It's simply a gray area like many others commonly encountered in real life scenarios. The important question here is rather this: given our goal (of creating a repository of free software that should be helpful to the people), how can we minimize the amount of censorship we're doing? We cannot remove all censorship, but we can minimize it. The [LRS](lrs.md) solution to the situation would be probably something akin the following.
+
+Let's create a base repository of all useful software that comes with a free license, i.e. even that which might break our original policy. (Note: we decide to not include any proprietary software because here the question of resources will already play a practical role -- including also proprietary software would require orders of magnitude more resources such as storage and maintainer time.) Now in this repository we will tag the software that passes our original policy let's say as *approved free software*. I.e. we have created (without much extra effort) effectively two repositories: that of all free software and that of *approved* free software. Now we are giving users a choice whether they want to use all free software or just the approved one. When the user installs an OS, he may be asked whether he only wants to see approved software (potentially safer) or all software (bigger risk but more software at hand), the decision is on him. Now we aren't doing thinking for the user, we aren't treating him like a baby, we only do a service for him and don't try to manipulate him, i.e. we are [selfless](selflessness.md) -- or at least more selfless than we were before. We aren't giving him a ultimatum ("either accept our censored repository or stay in your proprietary dystopia"), we are solely providing a service (basically a categorization and review of software) and want nothing in return. Yes, there is still a bit of censorship (no proprietary software, moving software to non-approved repository may make it less visible etc.), but it's much better than before. This is how it should be done.
+
 ## Examples
 
 Censorship is so frequent that it's hard to give just a short list of examples, especially [nowadays](21st_century.md), but here are a few: