Re: why not replace individual programs?
Goswin Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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