[Bf-committers] Re: [Bf-webcontent] Fwd: Blender.org website section email

[Tom M]

Hi,

there are two seperate issues here

1) Should Blender Foundation host content that is in poor taste and
reflects poorly on Blender?

Naughty nurse
http://www.blender3d.org/cms/Stand-alones.162.0.html

 is harmless but it is in "bad taste" and as such reflects poorly on
Blender Foundation.

Personally I think this is the more persuasive side of the issue

2) Should we host content that will prevent us from being used at schools?

This is similar to the issue Ubuntu encountered with its background
screen.  However depections of the nude form is an integral part of
artistry.  Thus if we had renders containing artistic nudity in the in
the gallery, then I'd argue against there removal even if it would
prevent some schools from linking to the Blender Foundation.

So in the case of the nurse I'd say that 1 is persuasive which happens
to also effect 2.

Note that in the US all schools recieving federal funding are required
to have content filters on them.  Since pretty much all schools do
recieve federal funding the filters are nearly universal.  Due to the
nature of how the keyword filters work the wording in the caption is
possible (likely?) to result in Blender being a blocked site.  Ie the
words naughty, nurse, mature and warning in such close proximity would
likely lead to blender being filtered if the school is using keyword
filtering.

LetterRip