Re: non-free and users?
Sven Luther wrote:
I understand what you are talking about. There are Debain developers who
want Debian to act always ethical, and there are Debian developers who
think it is O.K. to act non-ethical for Debian, for example because of
the work they contribute to non-free.
I maintain he unicorn driver, which is as non-free as it can get
(containing evil x86 binary only object file).
Please, demostrate to me how i am acting non-ethically by doing this,
I am not able do demostrate how are you acting non-ethically by
maintaining the unicorn driver.
and if you fail to do so, i certainly hope that you will promptly
present me excuses for this accusation of non-ethically you are making
I did not accuse you in maintaining the unicorn driver. I said that
Debian compel himself to non-ethical actions by distributing the package
which you maintain.
Distributing non-free does not necessery lead to non-ethical actions. It
compels Debian to non-ethical actions from time to time. It is more
ethical to distribute free software. It is less ethical, but still good
and ethical to distribute anything which people need (including Windows
XP). Non-free distributor compels himself to non-ethical actions from
time to time.
By dropping non-free Debian will always act very ethical. It is
important for Debian, since it is well-known and respected distribution.
Because of the Debian developers should be a good example to users.
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov