Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 10:44:21PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> writes:
[...]
> You did not say it, but the guidelines you were advocating using for
> determing which software is included lead to that conclusion. If you
Where did I say that? Please stop putting words into my mouth.
> > > folks. Allowing non-free does not increase net utility; it decreases
> > > it.
> >
> > Could you try to demonstrate that formally, possibly in the notation I
> > proposed in the earlier message. Do try, it will be humbling ...
>
> What notation? I have already demonstrated this multiple times.
Just read the email I wrote. In short, how can users be better off if we
reduce the set of available programs?
> > > The greatest increase in net utility will come by promoting Free
> > > Software rather than non-free software.
> >
> > Sure. And next months you turn around and declare all electrons evil because
> > they are made by non-free utility companies. Care to prepare a Debian Free
> > Stone Age Guideline, or DFSAG, for short?
>
> Wonderful ad hominem attack, Dirk. Too bad it is totally irrelevant
> to the topic of discussion.
It is not. AFAICT you are on a politically (or even religeously) motivated
crusade. The logical end to that is to work only on DFSG-free computers
using DFSG-free and breazing DFSG-free air.
Could you address my main point: Why does reducing choice make us better off?
Dirk
--
According to the latest figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
Reply to: