Raul Miller wrote:
This is the difference in our points. I think that non-free software is dangerous and mostly evil like a narcotic and should be immediately dropped.I understand that. What I don't understand is the basis for this belief of yours.
I'm not sure, if my English is good enough for expessing such complicated things. How people judge what is good and what is evil? I think my (and probably anyones) judgements are based on the expediency, usefulness of the particular action for themselves and humanity. The problem is (as usual) in how we define this things. Debian have software guidelines with such definitions. Because of them it can group together people with similar view.
Is it just the presence of the phrase "non-free"? Because, you don't seem to care anything about the details. You would have use treat freely redistributable GNU documentation under GFDL exactly the same as we currently treat commercial software which costs $250,000 for every CPU it runs on and another $25,000 for every user permitted to use it. I don't think that makes sense.
First of all I will not treat GFDL as non-free. It is not a program and is a grey area for Debian and AFAIK GFDL is still in main. I do not think it is a good example. Debian have good guidelines for programs. They are partially applicable for documentaion and for programs they work very good. Anyway it is a subject for another discussion.
There is a line which separates free from non-free. There are degrees of the freeness. Some programs are more free, some are less free. After a certain degree program becomes non-free, or evil. Debian DFSG define this line quite well for programs.
-- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov