Re: Point 1 of Social Contract
I speak about Point 1 : "We will help creaters and users of both free
and non-free software".
Help creaters of non-free software is unethical.
Don't support non-free software creaters and don't help them is freedom
protective.
Proprietary software is unethical and I see no reason to help unethical
things.
Le 04/05/2014 17:07, Jean-Christophe Dubacq a écrit :
> On 04/05/2014 14:24, Solal wrote:
>> [GR2004-2] have nothing to do with it.
>> My proprosition is just warn about proprietary software dangers, but
>> users would still install non-free software from repositories, get help
>> from developers, etc. But they are warned.
>>
>> Le 04/05/2014 14:20, Jean-Christophe Dubacq a écrit :
>>> On 04/05/2014 13:59, Solal wrote:
>>>> I think we shouldn't support proprietary software creaters, and we
>>>> should warn proprietary software users about proprietary software
>>>> unethicality (this does not mean that we will not help users proprietary
>>>> software but just that we warn of dangers. howewer, we will not help
>>>> proprietary software creaters).
>>>>
>>>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
>>>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
>>>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>>>
>>> This is your idea. However, as shown by [GR2004-2], this is not the
>>> opinion of the project.
>>>
>>> [GR2004-2]: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
>>>
>
> Please do not top-post if possible.
>
> I'd rather not annoy our users more than the current warning about
> enabling non-free at install time. However, this warning may be
> rewritten if the project feels it is not informative enough.
>
> However, your proposition also has the sentence "we shouldn't support
> proprietary software creaters". This is subject to many interpretations.
> The first interpretation that comes to my mind is in contradiction with
> point 5 of the Debian social contract (for example in "Thus, although
> non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and
> provide infrastructure for non-free packages").
>
> As for other interpretations, the project generally does not distinguish
> between uses of the software, be it for creating free software, curing
> cancer, being evil, or worse: creating non-free software. Not supporting
> proprietary software creaters would probably, in some of these
> interpretations, require considering not allowing Debian to be used for
> non-free software, which would bar us from using almost all currently
> DFSG-free software. Is that what you meant by "we shouldn't support
> proprietary software creaters"? Because providing them our wonderful
> distribution is supporting them.
>
> Sincerely,
>
Reply to: