Re: non-free and users?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >
> >On Jan 19, 2004, at 08:59, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> >
> >>Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do
> >>>(because we were no longer able).
> >>
> >>
> >>we were never able to do it. Or we are able to do it (in case of a
> >>GFDL like package for example).
> >
> >
> >I don't think I was clear enough. If it is ethical to share, then
> >currently, we are sharing our non-free archive with some people, and
> >that is an ethical act. If we maintain the status quo, then in the
> >future we will share non-free with more people. Since we're assuming
> >sharing is ethical, then that is a good.
> >
> >If we drop non-free, we will no longer be able to perform that good.
>
> I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as
> clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute
> non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debian can do. It was
> wrong and stupid to claim opposite from my side. This fact doesn't
> change the fact that by distributing non-free Debian act in the way
> which lead to unethical situations. Dropping non-free itself will
> decrease the amount of good, but it will decrease also the amount of
> actions which lead to unethical situations.
>
> The only solution I see, to get from the situation where the Debian is,
> will be that Debian not just drops non-free, but will redirect efforts
> and resources from distributing non-free to free packages support and
> distribution.
Well, the problem with that premise, is that it will redirect the effort
from working on free _and_ non-free software, to the work needed to
maintain the non-free.org architecture and/or maintaining the non-free
packages outside of debian.
The reality is that all the non-ethical argument you give are not
against debian or its developers, but against the upstream author.
And notice that altough many non-free packages are quite ok (imagine a
licence of the kind "GPL but additional limitation that it can't be used
for mass murders or such"), there are others, and in particular the
binary-only ones, which are not only non-ethical, but also plain _evil_.
But again, this is not something we have to worry about, only upstream
is involved in this decision, and it has often been that by the
packaging and distributing of non-free packages by debian, the upstream
maintainer has been brought to free his source.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: