[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why not replace individual programs?

Goswin Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

>      > * xv: do alternative viewer make what xv does? gtksee, gqview,
>      > imagemagick 
> All make less, some make more (like transparency). I allways wanted to
> have a replacement thats fully free, but I can use xv for free, so why
> bother. Thats one of the programs I would write, if non-free would
> disapear.

Just as I was beginning to think that I opposed the general resolution
(not on the grounds that Debian plus non-free is more useful, but
rather on the grounds that engagement with authors and users of
currently non-free software encourages the spread and production of
free software and thereby helps the free software movement), you come
along and point out how removing non-free can be a big motivator for
producing free software.

I can only encourage you to add the functionality you need to one of
the free viewers.  

> As a conclusion one can only say, we need non-free.

But you've given a good argument for removing non-free: it encourages
people to make fully free alternatives.  If you can get more or less
what you want out of non-free software, "why bother" worrying about


Reply to: