Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
grendel@vip.net.pl (Marek Habersack) writes:
> I never questioned anybody's morality. I only questioned morality of the
> situation where we're taking away something from someone (and do it by
> force) without giving them anything else instead. I think it is immoral
> (note: I don't say that *someone* is immoral) to deprive someone of anything
> without replacing that thing with another of the same, or better, quality.
You are making a sweeping overgeneralization. Let me start by drawing
some useful analogies:
1. Is it wrong for a wife to deprive her husband of his cigarettes,
so that he will likely live longer?
2. Is it wrong for the law to deprive me the right to walk up to
any random person and punch him on the nose?
3. Is it wrong to deprive someone of source code to software?
4. Is it wrong to deprive someone of the ability and right to
fix or modify his own software?
5. Is it right to deprive people the ability and right to
fix or modify software that Debian distributes?
6. Is it right for Debian to engage in activities that encourage
the spread of such ability- and right-depriving software?
Perhaps, you see, we're not helping much right now. I'm not proposing
that we run rm on user's machines. I'm merely proposing that we don't
distribute it ourselves. Let non-free osftware be distributed by
those that care about it. Let us focus on Free Software.
> > > by facts carved solid in stone.
> >
> > He has suggested some replacements. For the rest, there's nothing
> > wrong with telling people to get it themselves if they need it.
> Hmm... half of the thread was devoted to proving that it is wrong in telling
> so to the users...
I did not say this; in fact, I have said exactly the opposite. Nor do
I believe I have seen anyone else that supports my GR say that.
> > No one is suggesting that this is being done for the good of our
> > users. Everyone I've seen has been pretty clear that this has the
> > potential to suck for our users, and even the best case has a lot of
> > downers.
> And don't you think that it contradicts the, so many times quoted, point 4
> of the Social Contract that mentiones *users* as our *primary* priority (the
> word "users" is put before "free software" - I think it means something)?
You presume to infer far too much in many ways.
First, you infer that net utility declines when non-free is removed.
I am unconvinced.
Secondly, you infer that users will have trouble finding non-free to a
significant degree. I am still unconvinced.
Thirdly, you feel that development of Free Software is not
sufficient. I am not convinced of that either.
Do you not see the logical fallacy of all these positions? If you
claim that non-free's popularity will plummet because we no longer
carry it, you must agree that it becomes less beneficial for people to
publish non-free software, which encourages Free licensing. If, on
the other hand, you feel as I that there is not necessarily a
significant burden in getting non-free software from another source,
than that contradicts your first inference.
In either case, there is no net harm to the users or to the Free
Software community.
Reply to: