Re: non-free and users?
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> 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?
Why not?
Note that he's not defined what "good" is -- clearly, for different
definitions of "good" the result is different. It's also clear that
different people have differing ideas of "good" -- in fact, the same
person is likely to have different concepts of "good" in different
contexts.
I think you're concerned about users getting "locked in" to some software
that we can't support. If that's the case, then for you "good" would
be some measure of how "locked in" users are.
> 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.
I disagree that we're ignoring the consequences. I think we're quite
aware of the consequences, and that each of us balances the good
consequences against the bad consequences.
I think, however, that different people have different ways of looking at
things. In my mind, this means that the right choice is to decentralize
decisions made against differing viewpoints.
--
Raul
Reply to: