Re: non-free and users?
Raul Miller wrote:
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.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 07:24:05PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
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.
[1] There are many potential problems -- potential problems (and potential
"reasons why") are probably infinite in number. Though it's probably
true that most are irrelevant to most people.
I do not know what "potential" problem do you mean. I was talking about
really existing ethical problem.
[2] Examples are a test of the general case, not a justification for
the general case.
They are also used to improve understanding, what is general case about.
[3] Hypothetical examples are themselves not specific cases.
So what?
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.
That's no basis for dropping distribution on the because of problems with
all those possible licenses. That's a basis for making the decision on
a case-by-case basis.
Yes. There are some well-known classes of licenses, I selected one.
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.
When I've expressed my understanding of your solution to your stated
problem, you indicated that I didn't understand properly. Given that
I'm not understanding what you're saying, I have no way of knowing what
it is that I'd be convinced of, let alone whether or not I am convinced
by what you're saying.
That said, I'll try again:
The ethical dilemma you seem to be talking about involves a software
package which can not be modified to solve a user's problem. You propose
not distributing the package to prevent this dilemma from occurring.
That is not all what I proposed. I can tell once more: just not
distributing non-free program will not be that effective. You are
assuming that person which will stop to support non-free will stop
acting after it will stop to support and distribute non-free, you are
assuming that resources which were used for this will be not used
anymore. Efforts and resources which were spent on non-free can be
redirected on free software. But, you are right, to prevent people from
finding themselves in the described situation which contradicts human
ethics it is enough to stop distributing non-free.
You areNe specifically focussing on cases where the software license
prevents the solution, though from an ethical point of view that's not
really relevant -- it could just as easily be a code quality issue or
a lack of developer time which is the reason why the software can't be
used to address the user's problem.
I am focussing on the case when someone does not help because he is in the
situation because of the actions he(or someone else) perform before.
From ethical point of view it is important the fact that the help is
rejected because of the agreement not to help. Because situation when one
rejects to help, when someone needs help and is technicaly able to help
but does not help because of the agreement done before, contradicts human
ethics. When one does not help because of lack of time, abilities, resources
- it is not non-ethical. License does not prevent anything. License can not
act ethicaly or non-ethicaly. License is not human. Human acts. First he
agrees, then he rejects.
In any event, your proposed solution is "do not distribute that software
at all".
This "solution" means that the ethical dilemma is no longer present.
At least you agree with this. Thanks.
But the user is no better off.
Not necesserelly[1], but this can happen. Does this mean that I should
drop working on the free project which is waiting another user and start
packaging non-free for this one?
You also propose that the time spent on this software could instead by
spent on something else more productive. That may be the case, but it
This is one complete proposal. Instead of spending time on non-free,
spend time on free.
1. For example, if non-free which he needs have to be adapted for him
and author is not available. He will ask me, I will reject. In this case
he will suffer even more then in the case if he will not get the
software from me. This example is not very important, just a demo.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Reply to: