Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to
> > not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to.
That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to
stop putting any further effort into "non-free"?
> > Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved?
>
> Here are some, with references:
> "golden rule" (GNU Manifesto)
"I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a
program I must share it with other people who like it."
So how is this a justification for not sharing programs in
non-free with others?
> "friendship" (GNU Manifesto)
How is "drop the distribution of non-free and let commercial outfits
take up that distribution" an example of friendship?
> _Why Software Should Be Free_ (entire essay)
This is a good argument for replacing non-free software with free
software. I don't see, however, the justification for dropping the
distribution of "non-free" in the absence of such replacements.
> "Proprietary Software" (Categories of Free and Non-Free Software)
This talks about how to use words such as "free" and "non-free" in
a meaningful fashion. This is not a basis for dropping distribution
of non-free.
Note, however, that in this context it would probably be better
to call our "non-free" software something else more meaningful --
perhaps "semi-free".
> _Freedom or Power?_ (entire essay)
I see nothing here to justify dropping the distribution of
non-free.
> etc.
>
> >> http://www.apt-get.org/
> >
> > What about BTS?
>
> Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla
> now.
Gnome is in main.
--
Raul
Reply to: