Raul Miller wrote:
The mistake I'm talking about is not one we've made, but one we're contemplating making. I'm talking about forbidding the distribution, within debian, of software which satisfies some but not all of our guidelines.
My idea is to present arguments which will convince Debian developers to the proposed way of acting. The reason which should be compelling for them is their good will to act on the highest ethical level.
Your argument seems to me to be something like:If we distribute package A, but package A doesn't satisfy all of our guidelines, it's possible that there is some problem which package
I presented an example with a real existing ethical problem which can produce some unethical situation which Debian is not able to prevent acting in the way he acts today. I believe such situations happen.
A ought to be useful for, but that we can't solve using
> package A.
THEREFORE we should make sure that we can't solve any problems at all using package A. The problem I see with this line of reasoning is that your perceived problem "we can't solve some problem which package A ought to be useful for" becomes a much larger problem with your proposed solution.
I will be pleased if you will explain, how this can happen, if Debian will act in proposed way: working on free instead of non-free. How working on free can produce more problem than working on non-free?
-- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov