Ean R . Schuessler <ean@novare.net> wrote:Legal and moral obligation: there is more to linux than providing source code. The information about the code is inherently linked, and should be accessible (which might mean it has to be created...or filtered from the glut), and in some circumstances I agree it is not only a service to display it but a disservice to not display it.
> Removing the non-free software from apt's source list, the mirror network
> and other resources is rather a different question. Shipping apt with a
> non-free-free source list rather defeats its core purpose which is to
> make it easy for users to find the software they want. However, I can see
> your point that it may silently "addict" users to non-free software without
> their knowledge.Also, as I pointed out earlier today, we probably have a legal obligation
to do so.non-free consists of software which we have a right to distribute, but
which users aren't guaranteed a right to use. Some non-free packages may
be used by anyone, but other packages are more restricted.By making it very easy for a user who doesn't have rights to a package
to use such software without informed consent about those rights, we're
technically guilty of contributory infringement.No one has complained to us about this yet, but that doesn't make it
right.--
Raul
Currently there is "free", and "free with restrictions". Wouldn't it be a service to systemitize the listing (and hence the propagation and awareness) of the restricitions? I support "free", but I also support choice. Earlier I supported the seperation while asking that THE central main primary fundamental Debian web page link to both. Linking is necessary to provide choice. But information is necessary to make a choice. Awareness can be increased from the location of the primary page, at the link, and reinforced at the anchor to which it links (in a large banner, even).
I am aware of shareware that I can personally use (as a scholar, for home and study) without charge. I can't get sourcecode. This is much less than optimum. Yet I wouldn't wish to discourage the practice of recognizing scholarship as being different than the commercial game. Less than optimum, yes, but lets avoid (I ask you who matter to avoid) black and white and recognize shades of gray.
In slashdot I enjoyed the discourse on china's article comparing linux
to communism. A salient (as opposed to merely delightful) point was
raised that communism is based on the control of, and lack of freeflow,
of information. Linux was based on totally open flow. Lets
remember. It matters.