Re: non-free and users?
Sergey Spiridonov <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> 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 ?
> I presented a good example how Debian compels himself to non-etchical
> action by distributing non-free in my post to this thread from
> Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a package
> with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical, since it help
> people to solve their tasks. It compels me to non-ethical action when
> someone, for example, will request sources from me. One can think,
> that by limiting myself to produce and distribute free programs only I
> decrease the amount of good which I *can* do. I do not agree with this.
> If my aim is to act ethically (helping other people is ethical
> action), producing or distributing non-free will be not that
> effective, in comparision if I produce free. It is not a right way to
> realize my aim.
Well, imagine the difference between the world with the ocaml-doc
package in debian/non-free repository, and the world without it there
(but still findable at upstream location).
I don't see how the situation in the first case is worst than the
situation in the second case. I can't give you the source of
ocaml-doc (as they are available nowhere) in both case.
May be I would have done more good if I would have use my time to
package a free package, but I still believed that I have done more good
by packaging instead of reading a book.
By the way I don't agree that I'm doing something non-ethical when I
don't give you the ocaml-doc source : I don't have them, I can't even
if I want it.
The problem of ethic is at upstream, not in the redistribution of the