Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
By your argument, again, we ought to just allow everything in. This
is clearly not what Debian is about. We are about Free Software here,
folks. Allowing non-free does not increase net utility; it decreases
it. The greatest increase in net utility will come by promoting Free
Software rather than non-free software.
Dirk Eddelbuettel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> (Reformatted for clarity; debian-vote trimmed)
> John> What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is
> John> utility in us actually providing it?
> Dirk> What makes *you* think there isn't? Nice "holier than you" attitude.
> John> Before you flame, perhaps we could get an answer. I don't see any
> John> need at all. It's already said in most cases, he's just rewording
> John> it.
> Maximising utility over a set will yield a result at least equal to the
> utility from maximising over a constrained subset of the full set. In other
> words, we cannot be worse off by allowing non-free in.
> Everybody not wearing your politically tainted glasses clearly sees the
> higher utility from being able to use non-free, if so desired. If our users
> don't want it, they don't use it. That ease. It's about choice, not
> totalitarian prescription.
> If you want a "politically correct" subset of Debian, go ahead and fork.
> According to the latest figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org