Re: non-free and users?
Sergey Spiridonov <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <email@example.com> writes:
>>>Remi Vanicat wrote:
>>>>"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>>In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
>>>>non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
>>>Where is this good, which we will decrease? Do you think that dropping
>>>non-free will broke the upstream copy, or it will destroy the copy of
>>>those who downloded it? Where is the harm?
>> it is the documentation of a free software. We loose. It will be the
>> only thing that removing non-free will do to our user : losing the
>> nowadays integration of non-free stuff to debian.
> By stopping to distribute non-free Debian will reduce the amount of
> good he *can* do. He will also reduce the amount of non-ethical action
> he is compeled to do. Firstly let's look at the hypotetical example of
> Debian which never distributed non-free. It is more simple then
> current situation. If we will got an agreement on this example, we can
> easely decide on the current situtation.
> Let's say we have Debian without non-free. There is a package which is
> non-free but is useful for users. Debian has two options: to accept it
> or to reject. By accepting non-free package Debian compel himself to
> non-ethical actions in future.
I'm not a native English speaker, so I look to a dictionary, and I
must disagree there : I don't see why we are *compel* to non-ethical
action in the future. Which non-ethical actions ?