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

Re: non-free and users?

> >>By distributing non-free Debian increases users dependency.

Raul Miller wrote:
> > How?  And, based on that mechanism, to what degree?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 02:02:47AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> To 3.75 :) The important thing is that it increases. It is not so 
> important to what degree.

The details matter.

It's not clear to me that it does increase users dependency on non-free
at all, in any meaningful sense.

It is clear to me that it does decrease users dependency on non-free.
I've indicated the mechanisms for this in my previous couple posts.

Anyways, "increase" is a reference to something quantitative, and now
you seem to be saying that it's not a quantitative issue.

> >>As I said users are less educated (because they are users) in
> >>complicated questions. They tend to ingnore complicated issues of
> >>the software licensing. On the other side there are users who value
> >>Debian very much because it is the most free OS in the world.
> > 
> > In other words, you don't trust users to be able to think for themselves
> > about what's good for them and what's bad for them?
> You misunderstood me here. I'm talking about developers ethics, not 
> about users ethics. Not about thinking for users, but about software 
> developers and distributors moral responsibility.

These ethics, which you claim, but are unwilling to describe in detail,
appear to be about judging what's best for users, and other developers.

They appear to have little or nothing to do with your own personal
decisions about your life, which is what ethics are supposed to be about.

> > Here's the answer I was thinking of: decreasing support for users which
> > forces them to less free alternatives is a mechanism for increasing
> > their dependence on non-free software.
> You might be right or wrong here. There are three groups: (1) users 
> who 	use non-free and do not find free replacement (2) users who use 
> non-free and will find free replacement (3) users who do not use 
> non-free. As you already said, (1)+(2) is much less than (3). So the 
> amount of free software users will be decreased mostly by amount in 
> group (1), but will get group (2) which will switch to the free only 
> software.

If by "users" you mean "debian users", I agree that (1)+(2) is much
less than (3).  If by "users" you mean "all users of computer systems"
or "potential debian users" then (1) is a much larger group.

If you mean "debian users", your logic is flawed, because the system is
not closed.

If you mean "potential debian users", your logic is flawed because you
got the basic facts wrong.


Reply to: