[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

> 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.


Reply to: