Re: non-free and users?
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.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:48:50AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Dropping non-free will have no affect, one way or the other, on Debian
> > distributing Windows XP.
> On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 08:39, Raul Miller wrote:
> I think he used XP as an example. Substitute in "X" if you prefer:
> If I don't have X, it will be ethical to reject a request to
> distribute X, since I do not have X.
Except that statement doesn't make sense in the context of the current
discussion for arbitrary X.
As an obvious example, consider any important package as X. Yeah, it's
fine for him as an individual to not distribute it, but we're talking