On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:25:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > > The fact that some software has source and others don't; or that some can be > > > used by only certain people; is an irrelevant distinction to me. > > last message you were claiming that i was wrong when i accused the > > get-rid-of-nonfree zealots of this. someone else accused me of being > > delusional. > > well, i'm glad that we've got that cleared up now. > Me too. You see, I am aware of difference between the different > licenses. I simply do not care. It is not because I believe the DFSG > is perfect. Rather, it's becuase I believe restricting our users' > freedoms is wrong -- and, moreover, ultimately harmful. We will have a > better project if we do not engage in that sort of activity, even if it > is only a few users whose freedoms are trampeled, and even if those > freedoms are only lightly trampeled. Could you please explain how you reconcile "restricting our users' freedoms is wrong" with a proposal that would reduce our users' ability to choose non-free software? Or, if you believe that there will be no (statistically significant) reduction in users' choice resulting from moving non-free packages to a separate infrastructure, could you please explain what you foresee the mechanics of this to be, in light of Anthony Towns' persuasive argument that creation of a separate archive will make substantially less efficient use of available developer resources? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature