Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
On 15-Jun-00, 22:39 (CDT), John Goerzen <email@example.com> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Will you please stop equating "I want to provide the best experience
> > for our users" with "I support non-free software at the same level
> > of enthusiasm I support free software". They are not equivalent
> If you happen to believe that you want to provide what in your narrow
> view is the best experience, license be damned, that that's exactly
> what you're saying.
That's not what I believe, nor is it what I wrote. Since you're not
stupid, I must assume that your need to mistate my writings and those of
others is malicious. And somewhat dissapointing.
> Furthermore, if you attempt to assert that I am working to erode any
> sort of fundamental principle of Debian, I suggest that you ought to
> re-examine the proposed GR.
I did not so assert. What you seem to keep asserting is that those of us
who disagree with your proposal are morally corrupt. Perhaps you need to
reexamine what we write.
Once again: It is possible to disagree with your proposal and position
without being in favor of distributing everything, "license be damned".
> > distribution that includes non-free software, probably without
> > distinguishing such software, and we lose the ability to woo
> > those users away from such software. That may be less net harm to
> > community, or it may be more: I don't know, and neither do you.
> If you believe that you do not know, then it would seem ill-advised of
> you to claim that you do know a few sentences prior.
I believe that removing non-free is a net loss to our users. I'm unsure
of whether removing non-free benefits or harms the cause of free
software. Those are two different things. Is that clear enough?