Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("Re: Automatic downloading of non-free software by stuff in main"):
> > > > Our users are declared our priority, our downstreams aren't.
> > > 
> > > It never occurred to me that our downstreams could be considered as not
> > > being a part of our users. Is that a common understanding?
> > 
> > I hope not!  I consider all the users of all our downstreams, as users
> > of Debian.
> You are changing the topic, as initially you were talking about helping
> the downstream *developers* (by adding extra complexity to Debian).

I see no real distinction in general between helping users of our
downstreams, and helping the developers of those downstreams.  Often
they are the same people.  When they aren't, the downstream users have
chosen the downstream developers, and delegated a lot of things to the
developers of their operating system.  If we respect that delegation,
we respect those users.

Of course there could be exceptions, where a downstream's developers
take an unethical approach to their users.  But I don't think that a
particular highly-publicised stance towards non-free components can
fall into that category.  The users who have chosen such derivatives
have done so _because_ of that stance.  We serve those users if we
make their wishes easier to implement.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.