On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:55:57PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > My vision is based on the fact that most users do not care about > software freeness. Most of them are not acquainted with such complicated > issue as software freeness, source codes etc. So, educated in this area > software developer(distributor) is more responsible for the software > which he provides. Especially if he is well known and popular.
Hmm... My vision is that free software greatly benefits computer literate people, with less benefits as literacy declines. >From my point of view, the people who don't care much are also the people who don't get as much beneft. They get some [they aren't completely illiterate], but not as much. Furthermore, the natural benefits of free software means that in many cases there will be more of it than of non-free software. There are exceptions [where non-free software has some benefit], but most of those exceptions result in highly proprietary commercial software -- which we can't distribute at all. Or, try it this way: our "non-free" software is more like "mildly repressed" than "without freedom". If Linux were on the majority of all desktops, I might buy into the idea that getting rid of non-free would benefit the majority of users. But, right now, the so many users use stuff so much less free than our "non-free" that that concept seems a bit silly. -- Raul