On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms > > > for at least some of our users. > > I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client > > enhances anyone's freedom in any way. > I guess that's because you don't remember any of the debates surrounding > proposed legislation mandating escrowed encryption (skipjack, ...). > Though I'll grant that the principle benefit here doesn't come from any > of our guidelines.
Well, afaik non-free packages are ones that *are useful for some of our users* that we are *free to distribute*. The only freedom we require is that one: that we can stick it on our mirror network and not get sued. You could say that any piece of software enhances the freedom of the user -- that Microsoft Office lets the user use, well, Microsoft Office, and that's a choice they wouldn't have had beforehand. I can't see any other way in which any given piece of non-free software "offers some freedoms for at least some of our users" though. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature