Re: non-free and users?
> > But, value statements are best judged locally -- it's really up to
> > the user to decide whether the potential harm from a non-DFSG license
> > outweighs whatever other issues the user is dealing with.
> >
> > So the real question should be "does non-free harm users more than it
> > helps them?" And the real answer should come from the users.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 06:51:00PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Shouldn't the real question be "Is distributing non-free compatible with
> Debian developer ethics?"
Well, that might be theoretically possible, but I don't quite see how.
What are these ethics which conflict with the current form of the social
contract we require every developer to be familiar with?
I've asked numerous questions attempting to find a basis for such
principles -- the specifics of the associated moral code -- and the
closest I've found are FSF writings.
And, while I can accept that some significant number of Debian developers
are also adherents to FSF principles, that doesn't really make sense as
the basis for this hypothetical system of ethics which prohibits us from
distributing non-free.
One of the most blatent examples of this logical flaw is that a system
of ethics which prohibits us from distributing any of non-free would
have us not distribute GFDL licensed documentation.
However, maybe you have some insight into this issue that I'm missing?
--
Raul
Reply to: