On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-25 02:14:58 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
>
> >No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right
> >Thing
> >is evil.
>
> Small note: I think the proposed GR is closer to making the project
> not do the wrong
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-25 02:14:58 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right
> >Thing
> >is evil.
>
> Small note: I think the proposed GR is closer to making the project
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> If one thinks forcing people to do things is evil, then forcing
> continuation of non-free is evil in one way.
Continuing non-free does not require anyone to continue to work on it.
Every who is working on non-free is doing it of their own
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> If one thinks forcing people to do things is evil, then forcing
> continuation of non-free is evil in one way.
Continuing non-free does not require anyone to continue to work on it.
Every who is working on non-free is doing it of their own
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:08:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
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 misunder
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-25 02:14:58 + Anthony Towns
> wrote:
> >No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right
> >Thing is evil.
For reference or emphasis, I think there are plenty of reasons for
voting for the non-free proposa
On 2004-01-25 02:14:58 + Anthony Towns
wrote:
No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right
Thing
is evil.
Small note: I think the proposed GR is closer to making the project
not do the wrong thing. IIRC, it doesn't make the project do any extra
tasks and it doesn'
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:08:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
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 misunderstandi
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:19:53AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-25 02:14:58 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right
> >Thing is evil.
For reference or emphasis, I think there are plenty of reasons for
voting for t
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.
On 2004-01-25 02:14:58 + Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
No, I think that the philosophy of forcing people to do the Right
Thing
is evil.
Small note: I think the proposed GR is closer to making the project
not do the wrong thing. IIRC, it doesn't make the project do any extra
task
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.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No, the
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No, there ar
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
from distribution.
Raul Miller wrote:
It is if you can
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
from distribution.
Raul Miller wrote:
It is if you can get the
> >>>Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
> >>>the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
> >>from distribution.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > It is if you can get the s
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
from distribution.
It is if you can get the software from the
> >>>Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
> >>>the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
> >>from distribution.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > It is if you can get the s
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
from distribution.
It is if you can get the software from the author
> > Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
> > the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
> from distribution.
It is if you can get the software from the author after
Anthony Towns wrote:
I ask you to answer, the following questions.
One of the best ways to get people to do what you want them to do,
is to do it yourself first.
And you follow this rule all the time, of course.
I think, it is
important for our discussion, for me, for you, for Debian and
> > Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
> > the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
> from distribution.
It is if you can get the software from the author after
Anthony Towns wrote:
I ask you to answer, the following questions.
One of the best ways to get people to do what you want them to do,
is to do it yourself first.
And you follow this rule all the time, of course.
I think, it is
important for our discussion, for me, for you, for Debian and the w
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:44:19AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov w
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
all the non-free software people might want to use with free software,
we'd be happy to. Our choice is to distribute non-free sof
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:44:19AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
all the non-free software people might want to use with free software,
we'd be happy to. Our choice is to distribute non-free softwa
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
> >all the non-free software people might want to use with free software,
> >we'd be happy to. Our choice is to distribute non-free software, or
> >not
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >>O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
> >>actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
> >>any, which result from non-free distribution?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:48:09PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >There is no corresponding "we're too busy" formulation for the question
> >"Would you mind distributing this program on your mirrors, and letting me
> >use your BTS for it?
> So, do you agree with my example? You think it is O
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
> > license forbids you from getting a copy.
> >
> > Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
> > the copy.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:44:19AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
> >all the non-free software people might want to use with free software,
> >we'd be happy to. Our choice is to distribute non-free software, or
> >not
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >>O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
> >>actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
> >>any, which result from non-free distribution?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:48:09PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >There is no corresponding "we're too busy" formulation for the question
> >"Would you mind distributing this program on your mirrors, and letting me
> >use your BTS for it?
> So, do you agree with my example? You think it is O
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
> > license forbids you from getting a copy.
> >
> > Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
> > the copy.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:44:19AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
That is why it is obvious for me, why working
and distributing free is always better then working and distributing
non-free.
You seem to avoid answering my questions. It is your right to do so
without any explanation. I think we will be more productive if will try
to help
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
This is caused by distribution under non-free license to the person who
rejects me to
Anthony Towns wrote:
That is why it is obvious for me, why working
and distributing free is always better then working and distributing
non-free.
You seem to avoid answering my questions. It is your right to do so
without any explanation. I think we will be more productive if will try
to help bet
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
This is caused by distribution under non-free license to the person who
rejects me to get
> > No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
> > For example, if the problem is that you can't distribute it.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:33:44AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> But this situation is caused by another act of distribution. Because of
> this anothe
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> That is why it is obvious for me, why working
> and distributing free is always better then working and distributing
> non-free.
Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
all the non-free softwar
Raul Miller wrote:
I think we got an agreement on what is that action which is the source
of all problems specific to non-free. It is distribution under non-free
license.
No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
For example, if the problem is that you can't distr
> > No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
> > For example, if the problem is that you can't distribute it.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:33:44AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> But this situation is caused by another act of distribution. Because of
> this anothe
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:26:34AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I do not know ... I know ...
OK.
> I think we got an agreement on what is that action which is the source
> of all problems specific to non-free. It is distribution under non-free
> license.
No, you can have problems speci
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> That is why it is obvious for me, why working
> and distributing free is always better then working and distributing
> non-free.
Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
all the non-free softwar
Raul Miller wrote:
I think we got an agreement on what is that action which is the source
of all problems specific to non-free. It is distribution under non-free
license.
No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
For example, if the problem is that you can't distribut
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you mean that by distributing non-free we do the best what we can?
Why? Even if we can work on free instead of non-free?
When there is no completely free alternative, we distribute the best
alternatives available.
If you think counter examples exist, please describe them
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:26:34AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I do not know ... I know ...
OK.
> I think we got an agreement on what is that action which is the source
> of all problems specific to non-free. It is distribution under non-free
> license.
No, you can have problems speci
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you mean that by distributing non-free we do the best what we can?
Why? Even if we can work on free instead of non-free?
When there is no completely free alternative, we distribute the best
alternatives available.
If you think counter examples exist, please describe them.
I d
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No, there aren't. There might be bad consequences from forcing people to use
no
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No, there aren't. There might be bad consequences from forcing people to use
non-f
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:39:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I think we agreed that rejecting to help 'B', when we are busy with
helping 'A' is O.K. It will be completely ethical to act in this way.
It produces no evil to answer "Sorry, we are busy with helping S.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:39:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I think we agreed that rejecting to help 'B', when we are busy with
helping 'A' is O.K. It will be completely ethical to act in this way.
It produces no evil to answer "Sorry, we are busy with helping S.
Spi
Anthony Towns wrote:
Damn, I thought I already replied to this. Apparently not.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
There are some basic things
Anthony Towns wrote:
Damn, I thought I already replied to this. Apparently not.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
There are some basic things, for
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:39:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I think we agreed that rejecting to help 'B', when we are busy with
> helping 'A' is O.K. It will be completely ethical to act in this way.
> It produces no evil to answer "Sorry, we are busy with helping S.
> Spiridonov and ot
Damn, I thought I already replied to this. Apparently not.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> >If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
> >might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
> There are some basic things, formulated a long
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:39:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I think we agreed that rejecting to help 'B', when we are busy with
> helping 'A' is O.K. It will be completely ethical to act in this way.
> It produces no evil to answer "Sorry, we are busy with helping S.
> Spiridonov and ot
Damn, I thought I already replied to this. Apparently not.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> >If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
> >might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
> There are some basic things, formulated a long
> >>The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
> >>which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
> >>care about it.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > False.
> >
> > We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring about it.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 0
Raul Miller wrote:
The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
care about it.
False.
We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring about it.
Do you mean that by distributing non-free we
> >>The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
> >>which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
> >>care about it.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > False.
> >
> > We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring about it.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 0
Raul Miller wrote:
The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
care about it.
False.
We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring about it.
Do you mean that by distributing non-free we do th
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 01:14:42AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
> which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
> care about it.
False.
We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring abo
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Tell me, how will you help your friend which inadvertently bought a
nvidia graphic card instead of a radeon one to get 3D ? How will you
I will suggest him to buy radeon and to sell nvidia.
Well, You will give me the money that this operation will cost me?
How much do
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 01:14:42AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
> which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
> care about it.
False.
We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring abo
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Tell me, how will you help your friend which inadvertently bought a
nvidia graphic card instead of a radeon one to get 3D ? How will you
I will suggest him to buy radeon and to sell nvidia.
Well, You will give me the money that this operation will cost me?
How much do you need
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:18:54PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> 2. Debian gets program from 'A' with non-free license and distributes
> it. In this case all that situations which will happen around programs
> distributed by Debian are consequences of such a chain:
>
> 'A' produces and _dis
Sven Luther wrote:
>> Tell me, how will you help your friend which inadvertently bought a
>> nvidia graphic card instead of a radeon one to get 3D ? How will you
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will suggest him to buy radeon and to sell nvidia.
Well, You will give me the m
Raul Miller wrote:
One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine,
but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be
*distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce
described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example he
Raul Miller wrote:
One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine,
but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be
*distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce
described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example her
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:18:54PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> 2. Debian gets program from 'A' with non-free license and distributes
> it. In this case all that situations which will happen around programs
> distributed by Debian are consequences of such a chain:
>
> 'A' produces and _dis
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
> >>as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
> >>acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Wha
Sven Luther wrote:
>> Tell me, how will you help your friend which inadvertently bought a
>> nvidia graphic card instead of a radeon one to get 3D ? How will you
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will suggest him to buy radeon and to sell nvidia.
Well, You will give me the m
Raul Miller wrote:
One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine,
but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be
*distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce
described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example here,
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
What you're d
Raul Miller wrote:
One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine,
but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be
*distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce
described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example here, i
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
> >>as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
> >>acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Wha
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
What you're doing
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:14:14PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I will reformulate this question, to avoid misunderstaning:
>
> What is wrong with associated actions regarding non-free programs?
There is no generally true answer to this question. The question itself
is about as useful as
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
> as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
> acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
Software is not narcotics.
Soft
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs?
I will reformulate this question, to avoid misunderstaning:
What is wrong with associated actions regarding non-free programs?
--
Best
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I said that by redirecting efforts and resources from non-free to free
we will reduce amount of unethical situations. You say that redirecting
efforts and resources from non-free to f
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 08:14:14PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I will reformulate this question, to avoid misunderstaning:
>
> What is wrong with associated actions regarding non-free programs?
There is no generally true answer to this question. The question itself
is about as useful as
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
> as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
> acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
Software is not narcotics.
Soft
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs?
I will reformulate this question, to avoid misunderstaning:
What is wrong with associated actions regarding non-free programs?
--
Best rega
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I said that by redirecting efforts and resources from non-free to free
we will reduce amount of unethical situations. You say that redirecting
efforts and resources from non-free to free (
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
But he does! That is his fault!
And if someone will say to me, that it is me, who does this with my own
hands, I will be insulted.
The funny thing about the word "insulted" is if you will tell it
to Russian native speaker like me, he
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
But he does! That is his fault!
And if someone will say to me, that it is me, who does this with my own
hands, I will be insulted.
The funny thing about the word "insulted" is if you will tell it
to Russian native speaker like me, he will
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >>I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as
> >>clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute
> >>non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debia
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:52:41PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
> >wrong.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
> >problem for someone, while i real
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >>I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as
> >>clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute
> >>non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debia
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:52:41PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
> >wrong.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
> >problem for someone, while i real
Anthony Towns wrote:
Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
There are
Anthony Towns wrote:
Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
There are some bas
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I
> >>describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are
> >>talking about.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Which description(s), specifically, are you
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I
> >>describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are
> >>talking about.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Which description(s), specifically, are you
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:15:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
> I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:15:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
> I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed
1 - 100 of 414 matches
Mail list logo
