On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:15:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
> I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
> >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.
> And you are sure, there is nothing wrong with this, aren't you?
No, I'm not sure there's nothing wrong with it, but I certainly don't
think there's anything wrong with it. If Debian were the one allowing
people to create non-free software -- ie, was behind copyright law itself
-- I might be concerned, but as it is we have to treat copyright law
as a given, and work out the best things we can do in that context. And
as I've said elsewhere, I don't think distributing non-free imposes any
significant costs, and does provide some significant benefits.
> What are all this GPL, LGPL, BSD and Artisic about? What is the reason
> to value them more than non-free licenses?
Huh? Isn't that obvious?
The question isn't why should we value these licenses more, the question
is whether, given the choice, there's any software we should choose not
to distribute.
For comparison, I'd consider the GPL and BSD licenses far more valuable
than the Artistic license; and while that's a reason for me to *prefer*
software licensed under the GPL or BSD license, it's not a reason to
avoid software under the Artistic license outright.
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