On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms
> > > for at least some of our users.
> > I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client
> > enhances anyone's freedom in any way.
> I guess that's because you don't remember any of the debates surrounding
> proposed legislation mandating escrowed encryption (skipjack, ...).
> Though I'll grant that the principle benefit here doesn't come from any
> of our guidelines.
Well, afaik non-free packages are ones that *are useful for some of our
users* that we are *free to distribute*. The only freedom we require is
that one: that we can stick it on our mirror network and not get sued.
You could say that any piece of software enhances the freedom of the
user -- that Microsoft Office lets the user use, well, Microsoft Office,
and that's a choice they wouldn't have had beforehand. I can't see any
other way in which any given piece of non-free software "offers some
freedoms for at least some of our users" though.
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 could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature