Re: non-free and users?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 07:34:54PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> 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.
Ok. This would probably mean that i am not acting non-ethically. Thanks,
i was finding it quite distressing that you were comparing my work for
debian (even the one involving non-free) to thiefs and murderer.
> >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
> >against me.
> 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.
You also said this is a result of my packaging work on non-free
packages, thus leveling an indirect accusation against me. In this, you
are hurting my honor, and i want you to immediately stop saying such
> Distributing non-free does not necessery lead to non-ethical actions. It
Well, you were saying the contrary a few mails back.
> 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.
This is bullshit, sorry for the language, this has nothing to do with
it. You could say that it is non-ethical from upstream to not distribute
their software in a free licence, but then they will claim that it is
_their_ work, and that they have the right to distribute it under any
licence they want, or even not distribute it.
The way we are doing it, by removing non-free from the debian archive in
hope for the upstream authors releasing their software in a more free
licence, could also be seen as an unclean racket to try to pry away
their software from them under conditions they choose not to. And you
are speaking of ethicality ?
> 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.
Debian has always been well-known and respected, even while it
distributed non-free, so i doubt it will have any influence, except on
making _my_ live as non-free packager more difficult. You are indeed
trying to push the volunteers which work on debian packages around to
work on stuff you want them to, and stop them from working on stuff you
don't want them too.