Re: non-free and users?
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Even ignoring that, this argument does have a slight problem. For
example, the amount of work to replace FOO with a free alternative is
substantially more than the amount of work to package FOO. So, in the
same amount of time it took us to rewrite FOO, we could of packaged BAZ,
TAZ, and FROB, even if they aren't free.
Did I understand you correctly? You are saying we can help people
more efficient if we will do the job which requieres less efforts but
produce the same amount of good? You mean that we can do more good
things with less efforts by packaging and distributing non-free, that
is why it is more efficient? Your idea is to maximize the good which is
possible to do at the fixed period of time?
There is nothing bad with this idea until we do not take in account
negative consequences of what we are doing. The problem with mostly all
arguments which justify non-free distribution is that they ignore
consequences of this action. It is not correct.
It is true, that distributing non-free is ethical and helps people. But
it is also true that it leads to increasing described unethical
situations. By maximizing amount of non-free packages we also maximize
the amount of such situations. Icreasing amount of unethical situations
can not be good.
I will justify non-free distribution if there will be no way to act
without increasing unethical situations. For example, if free software
will become illegal. It is not the case.
That really just leaves the question: Does the ethical action of being
able to help some/most people by sharing non-free software outdo the
unethical action of being unable to help some people, because the
software is non-free? Or is the unethical action so bad that no amount
of ethical actions can make up for it?
You probably want to address the question is the evil in unethical
situations which happen because of distributing non-free can be outdone
by the good produced by distribution free. I don't think it is easy to
count even the amount of unethical situations which can happen in a
limited period of time. We can count case #2, but case #1 will stay
uncounted. The fact that it is difficult to count doesn't mean we should
ignore it.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Reply to: