On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:08:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>>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?
I have no idea what you're talking about there; I was merely contradicting
your statement of my opinions. I don't think there's anything ambiguous
about what I said.
> >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.
Well, sure, you claim it's obvious now, but a second ago you were
insisting that I didn't think anything remotely like that were true.
> >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?
As I've repeatedly said, that's not a meaningful comparison. That choice
is almost /never/ the one you have, and it's not the one we have here.
> >>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.
Then you should make those arguments, and encourage people to distribute
free software, rather than attempting to forbid them to distribute
non-free software.
> >Personally, I think that's an evil philosophy.
> You probably mean the potential outcome of non-free ballot?
No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right Thing
is evil.
Whether Debian should distribute non-free is just a choice for the
project to make -- there are benefits and there are costs. I don't think
the benefits come anywhere near to paying the costs.
I've no idea why you feel obliged to keep telling me what I think,
least of all when you get it wrong so consistently.
> >>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.
"The amount of good does not depend on the license"
"Sometimes it is easier to package non-free"
"according to you it will be better to package first such a easy non-free"
"since there is already non-free .. there is no need to package free anymore"
"[package free] will be just a waste of time"
Actually, I take it back: the second claim there was probably meant to be
"easier to package non-free than write a free replacement from scratch".
That's probably true, whereas what I originally interpreted it as,
namely "easier to package non-free than to package some free software"
is very rarely true. The other claims are all false though.
> >>Are you sure, that free software have higher priority for your
> >>than non-free?
> 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.
And I spend time working on free software. Imagine that. There are
plenty of tools to find out information about who you're talking to,
and at worst, you can always ask. There's no need to make offensive
insinuations like the above from a basis of ignorance.
> You said me that
> distribution of free is not always better than distribution non-free.
Huh? No, I did not.
> 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.
Again, that's a false dichotomy. We don't have to choose between free and
non-free software: we can work on *both*. Even better, the resources we
spend on non-free software are ones that magically appear just because
we let them work on non-free software.
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