Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:47:42PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: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?I already presented some examples (using GFDL). You indicated you didn't want to talk about them. I've presented other examples, as well. Note, I'm talking about "packages we distribute which do not satisfy all of our guidelines" when I say "non-free". I don't really know what you're talking about.
I'm talking about example (truly 2 examples) which was presented by me. I asked to limit ourselves to this particular problem - I meant package which contains license which does not allow to distribute modified sources. I think we should solve one problem at a time. It is not because I do not want to talk about the rest, but because it is quite difficult to create well formulated examples without flaws. It is difficult to talk about all possible licenses in non-free at the same time, since I do not have a good classification. Generally, the second example, which talks about 2 cases of how one can find himself in unethical situation, extends the definition of non-free for packages which do not have available sources.
If you think, that I convinced you about the ethical problem and possible way to solve it regarding this example, we should start to talk about the rest.
-- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov