Re: non-free and users?
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
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?
No, there aren't. There might be bad consequences from forcing people to
use non-free software; but we're not doing that.
>
So, in your opinion, distributing of free and non-free produce the same
amount of good.
Uh, no. They both do the same amount of *harm*, ie, none at all.
Those situations which I described produce no evil at all, dont' they?
Distributing high quality software that's widely useful to people is a
greater good than distributing low quality software that's useful to
no one.
Of course.
All else being equal, a free license makes the software both
more valuable (there's more stuff you can do with it if you can pull it
apart, and put it back together again in a different way), and useful
to more people.
So, distributing free software is more valuable and more good than
distributing non-free?
Of course, according to you there are no bad consequences from packaging
and distributing non-free, as well as from packaging and distributing
free.
You seem to think that not doing the most optimal thing is causing harm;
No, I don't think it produces harm always. I think doing not the most
optimal thing is irrational, not clever.
and thus that if you have the power to force someone else to do a more
optimal thing, then you're morally obligated to make use of that power.
I think it is enough to show the irrationality.
Personally, I think that's an evil philosophy.
You probably mean the potential outcome of non-free ballot? You mean
that you will be forced to stop non-free distribution in Debian?
Every ballot results in majority and minority. It will be probably
painful for minority to agree with ballot results. But it will be
stupid if majority will suffer from being not able to do what it wants.
But even given it, that's not the choice we've got here. We've got the
power to stop people from doing a suboptimal activity -- distributing
some software for free, that's not DFSG-free. If we stop them doing that,
they may spend some more time on DFSG-free stuff, or they might instead
spend their time killing babies or selling their software at a profit.
Yes, I agree, it will be nice to convince them to work on free, or
probably some other useful things. If it is possible, it will
probably happen.
The amount of good does not depend of the license, but sometimes
it is easier to package non-free, so according to you it will be better
to package first such a easy non-free, then free, and since there is
already non-free, which can solve users problem, there is no need to
package free anymore, since it will be just waste of time.
No, none of that is remotely true.
I'm probably very far from understaning you.
Are you sure, that free software have higher priority for your
than non-free?
If it didn't, I wouldn't be spending time on Debian or Linux. I'm not
sure why you feel it's appropriate to wander on to these lists and throw
around thoughtless insults like the above, either.
Execuse me please, if I abused you somehow, but it is really not clear
for me from what you were saying. I show my misunderstanding by this
wondering. There can be lot of reasons why someone choose to spend time
working and distributing non-free software and to spend time on
supporting and advocating non-free software. You said me that
distribution of free is not always better than distribution non-free.
That is why I wondered.
I know there are developers who do not agree with distribution of
non-free by Debian. As for you, free software for them have also higher
priority. What is the difference in your views? Is it caused by
difference in basic understanding of what distribution of free and
distribution non-free is? Or is it caused by flaw in logic chain? Second
case can probably be corrected by discussion. The first one can not be
corrected and should be voted or ignored.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Reply to: