Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Remi Vanicat wrote: >> I'm not a native English speaker, so I look to a dictionary, and I >> must disagree there : I don't see why we are *compel* to non-ethical >> action in the future. Which non-ethical actions ? >> [...] > > I presented a good example how Debian compels himself to non-etchical > action by distributing non-free in my post to this thread from > 17.01.2004. > > Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a package > with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical, since it help > people to solve their tasks. It compels me to non-ethical action when > someone, for example, will request sources from me. One can think, > that by limiting myself to produce and distribute free programs only I > decrease the amount of good which I *can* do. I do not agree with this. > If my aim is to act ethically (helping other people is ethical > action), producing or distributing non-free will be not that > effective, in comparision if I produce free. It is not a right way to > realize my aim.
Well, imagine the difference between the world with the ocaml-doc package in debian/non-free repository, and the world without it there (but still findable at upstream location). I don't see how the situation in the first case is worst than the situation in the second case. I can't give you the source of ocaml-doc (as they are available nowhere) in both case. May be I would have done more good if I would have use my time to package a free package, but I still believed that I have done more good by packaging instead of reading a book. By the way I don't agree that I'm doing something non-ethical when I don't give you the ocaml-doc source : I don't have them, I can't even if I want it. The problem of ethic is at upstream, not in the redistribution of the package. -- Rémi Vanicat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
