On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:26:37PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> >>That is
> >>why my very first question was "Is distributing non-free compatible with
> >>Debian developer ethics?".
> >By definition it is. Debian developer ethics *require* the distribution
> >of non-free software. Defining what our ethics are is what the social
> >contract is all about.
> Well, that is why I wonder, what are the basis of this ethics?
The basis for our ethics are supporting the free software community and
our user community.
> I agree that SC is almost perfect, but taking as an aim the actions wich
> can lead to unethical situations is a bit strange for such an
> organization as Debian is.
Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
It's outright *wrong* to say that the distribution of non-free software
leads to "unethical situations".
> On the other side distributing non-free does not serves human
> ethics in the most effective way.
That's a matter for debate, not assertion. Of all the choices available
to us, IMO, Debian distributing non-free *does* serve human interests
in the most effective way.
It's not really meaningful to talk of "human ethics" though -- there's
no such common basis for us to work from. Some people consider free
software to be unethical, eg.
Pretending that this is a simple matter of being true to our ethics,
or to our principles doesn't make the subject clearer -- personally,
I think one of our principles is that we distribute all the software we
can, free or not, and I don't think that's in conflict with our other
principles. YMMV, of course, but that's why we debate the merits.
> There is no need to require to work on free software, since I assert
> each and every Debian developer wants to act in the most ethical way.
If you're happy to accept that they'll all follow different sets of
ethics, sure. If you're happy to accept that they won't always achieve
this goal, sure. But somehow it sounds like there's more to the subtext
of what you've written than meets the eye.
> I do not say that I'm "harmed" when someone else chooses to work on
> non-free software instead of free software, or chooses not to work on
> Debian at all. I will be "harmed"[1] if someone will ask me to help him
> with non-free package distributed by Debian and I will not be able to
> help him because of the legal issues.
Please help me get my wireless access points configured; the only
software I have for them is Windows only and doesn't seem to work,
and I can't seem to make them use the same ESSID.
I don't see why you'd feel bad in any way at having to say "sorry, can't
help you" to requests like that. If you actually do, I think you should
seriously consider changing your outlook.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature