[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: non-free and users?

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.

There are some basic things, formulated a long time ago. For example, helping other people is something which everyone consider as good.
Make other people to suffer is what everyone consider as bad.

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?

It is not obvious. I want you to tell, please, what is wrong with not allowing to modify distributed sources.

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.

O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if any, which result from non-free distribution? Please name them, if you think there are some.

Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Reply to: