Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
John Goerzen <email@example.com> writes:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > And don't you think that it contradicts the, so many times quoted,
> > point 4 of the Social Contract that mentiones *users* as our
> > *primary* priority (the word "users" is put before "free software"
> > - I think it means something)?
> You presume to infer far too much in many ways.
> First, you infer that net utility declines when non-free is removed.
> I am unconvinced.
Why exactly did you package non-free/idled? Even though you seem to be
unconvinced that it enhances net utility? Will you keep maintaining
the Debian package for it if your proposal passes?
> Secondly, you infer that users will have trouble finding non-free to a
> significant degree. I am still unconvinced.
> Thirdly, you feel that development of Free Software is not
> sufficient. I am not convinced of that either.
This is ambiguously worded.
1) "It is not sufficient to develop only free software"
I'm sure nobody took this position.
2) "Free software needs even more development efforts"
I would be surprised if you're not convinced of that one. The simple
fact that developers and users of Debian use/want non-free software
should be sufficient to show that more/better free software is needed.
> Do you not see the logical fallacy of all these positions?
If you're talking about the three points you raised above, no.
(Even though I'm not the "you" from above).