Raul Miller wrote: > [*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it > also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate > for that need is distributed instead).
That is true, and that is why I propose to drop non-free. Debian will not have non-free to distribute, so he will not prevent its distribution.
What is the distinction between "drop non-free" and "prevent its distribution"?
Example seems to work better. Example:
I downloaded program 'A' from non-free section of Debian and started to distribute it. I made a copy for my friend Bin and for my friend Laden. After this I erased the program from my hard drive. I dropped it. After I dropped my copy the third mate Usama got the copy from Bin.
As you can see, there is nothing non-ethical here. I can distribute only what I have. It is the same with Debian non-free.
Preventing distribution is something else. I understand it like forcing *everyone* to stop distribution. Also, it is not a prohibition: Usama still can get a copy from his friends, or from Debian.
I believe stopping to distribute non-free is an ethical action. This is not prohibition: those who really want to have non-free can find it somewhere else.
In that sense, shutting down Debian entirely and not distributing anything at all is equivalent to continuing to distribute Debian. After all, people can find the programs we distribute elsewhere.
I do not talk about continuing to distribute something. A was talking about dropping something. It is not possible to distribute something after you drop it. To distribute something you should have it first.
It is responsibility of Debian developers to act ethical, because they should be good example for users.
Yes.
This is nice to read.
I think it's a huge mistake to not distribute GFDL because we know we shouldn't distribute Microsoft Windows XP.
I agree.
-- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
