Re: non-free and users?
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >>>>By distributing non-free Debian increases users dependency.
I did not write that, you did. I did write this next sentence:
> > Raul Miller wrote:
> >>>How? And, based on that mechanism, to what degree?
I also did not write this next couple sentences:
> >>To 3.75 :) The important thing is that it increases. It is not so
> >>important to what degree.
But I did write this next sentence:
> > The details matter.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:18:42AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> How do details about non-free distribution matter?
I believe I answered this question in the post you are responding
to. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01345.html
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.
That's not a complete answer, I suppose, but it does indicate a
number of significant issues which can only be addressed by getting
into the details of your statement.
> You can compare with narcotics.
I can. I don't.
I believe you're thinking about my over use of the words "depend",
in one of my drafts, which is a sort of concept relevant to the use
sotware packages. Someone else didn't see that connection and saw
another connection instead.
> If one distributes cocain because he wants to be more popular
> it is bad no matter on degree it increases people dependency.
Distributing cocaine is illegal. If we're distributing anything illegal
in non-free, we should of course stop immediately.
Also, if we're distributing any software which consistently reduces a
the user's life expectency, we should stop distributing that software
on moral grounds.
But people also depend on water -- is it bad to distribute water if
someone wants to be more popular, no matter what degree it increases
one's popularity?
And how about hammers? [The kind you pound nails into wood with.]
Some people depend on hammers -- not everybody, but some people.
And hammers usually cost a bit of money to produce, and might break if
they're produced poorly -- they can't be produced freely. Does that
make it bad to distribute hammers if one wants to become more popular?
> If you want to compare on how bad it is in comparision with others, who
> distribute heroin, go ahead, I am not interested in this.
I am not interested in engaging in any illegal activities. I'm not even
interested in distributing legal drugs such as asprin.
> Such a "popularity" is not good popularity.
By your logic, to the degree you've expressed any, we also shouldn't
be distributing ANY packages which peole come to rely on. That would
eliminate the most useful parts of main, as well.
--
Raul
Reply to: