Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 01:27:40AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > By your argument, again, we ought to just allow everything in. This
>
> You won't win an argument by inventing arguments you wish your opponent had
> said. Obviously, I did not say that, and neither did I mean to say it. That
> should be obvious from what I've done here over the last 5 years.
You did not say it, but the guidelines you were advocating using for
determing which software is included lead to that conclusion. If you
advocate distributing any non-free software that somebody finds
useful, then you are advocating allowing everything in because you are
putting forth no other guidelines.
> > 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.
>
> Could you try to demonstrate that formally, possibly in the notation I
> proposed in the earlier message. Do try, it will be humbling ...
What notation? I have already demonstrated this multiple times.
> > The greatest increase in net utility will come by promoting Free
> > Software rather than non-free software.
>
> Sure. And next months you turn around and declare all electrons evil because
> they are made by non-free utility companies. Care to prepare a Debian Free
> Stone Age Guideline, or DFSAG, for short?
Wonderful ad hominem attack, Dirk. Too bad it is totally irrelevant
to the topic of discussion.
Reply to: