Re: non-free and users?
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > So, when I'm talking about "prevent distribution of", I'm talking
> > about "prevent distribution of non-free", not "prevent distribution
> > of upstream".
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
> developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP, it will
> be ethical to reject a request to distribute it, since I do not have it.
Dropping non-free will have no affect, one way or the other, on Debian
distributing Windows XP.
If you think it would, I understand why it is that we've been talking
past each other.