Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Remi Vanicat wrote: >> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>Remi Vanicat wrote: >>> >>>>"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute >>>>non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical. >>> >>>Where is this good, which we will decrease? Do you think that dropping >>>non-free will broke the upstream copy, or it will destroy the copy of >>>those who downloded it? Where is the harm? > > >> it is the documentation of a free software. We loose. It will be the >> only thing that removing non-free will do to our user : losing the >> nowadays integration of non-free stuff to debian. > > By stopping to distribute non-free Debian will reduce the amount of > good he *can* do. He will also reduce the amount of non-ethical action > he is compeled to do. Firstly let's look at the hypotetical example of > Debian which never distributed non-free. It is more simple then > current situation. If we will got an agreement on this example, we can > easely decide on the current situtation. > > Let's say we have Debian without non-free. There is a package which is > non-free but is useful for users. Debian has two options: to accept it > or to reject. By accepting non-free package Debian compel himself to > non-ethical actions in future.
I'm not a native English speaker, so I look to a dictionary, and I must disagree there : I don't see why we are *compel* to non-ethical action in the future. Which non-ethical actions ? [...] -- Rémi Vanicat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]