[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: non-free and users?

> Remi Vanicat wrote:
>> Secondly, in #2 the fact that the package is or not in non-free change
>> only one thing : if B need the package it will be more difficult for
>> him to find it.

"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <sena@hurd.homeunix.org> writes:

> Distributing non-free often lead to the described situation which
> contradicts ethics. This situation contradicts ethics regardless of
> the solution which I propose. You probably can find better solution,
> but I do not see it.
>> But it doesn't change the fact that you can't give him
>> a modified version of the package.
> Yes, you are right. I can't give him modified version of non-free
> package.

Yes, but the fact it is or not into debian does not change this, so
the fact to put this package into debian is non-ethical only in what
look like an "hypocritical" way (for lack of a better word) : it look
like it is more ethical because the package is not into debian and you
are not related with it, but it doesn't change a thing for the end
user, so there are no better nor good created by this.

>> Thirdly, not all non-free enter in your example.
> Yes, you are right. Please, let's limit ourselves with one example at
> a time. It is difficult to create an example which will cover all
> possible cases and licenses.

I do believe that there are package in non free where you can't find
an example of situation when this package compel you to non-ethical
action. And this one of the very important reason why I'm against
removing non-free, So I can't forget this for now in the discussion.

Rémi Vanicat

Reply to: