Re: my answers to questions
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 07:35:52AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 02:42:53AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > > I do not want to see non-free more readily available,
> > > I would in fact like for it to wither and die. That's not contrary to the
> > > needs of commercial interests,
> > You surely meant "proprietary interests" here. Commercial interests and free
> > software have never conflicted in a fundamental way. It slips through a
> > couple of other times in your mail, but I won't nag you by pointing them
> > out.
> Just my POV:
> The reasons for the existance of non-free have nothing to do with either
> "proprietary interests" or "commercial interests"!
You are quite wrong. Proprietary software is non-free, so if all non-free
software were to wither and die, we would not have proprietary software.
This is why there might be a conflict between proprietary interests and the
removal of non-free.
Also, some commercial interests might spawn non-free licenses, which fail
the DFSG. But there is no fundamental conflict between commercial interests
and free software. You can sell free software, and there are quite a few
innovative business models based on free software, more to come.
> Sorry for the longish rant, but I'm just tired of seeing the usual
> misdirection I find in everyday politics mirrored in a Debian discussion.
I am unhappy, because I can't see what misdirection you perceive.
In fact, I don't see what your rant has to do with the distinction I was
trying to make.
> The reasons for non-free have nothing to do with our lofty ideals and
> obvious disdain for anyone who would make money using free sofware or any
> other kind. (which, by the way, includes my hunble self)
Upon carefully rereading my email you replied to, you might find out
that actually nodody in this thread is disagreeing with you on this point.