1. Person 'A' distributes non-free program to person 'B'. Person 'B' come to me and ask for help. I reject to help, since the program is not free. In this case I suffer from being not able to help person 'B' because of the actions of persons 'A' and 'B'[1].
And please tell me, how could you have suffered less if 'A' did not
provide the non-free software to 'B' ?
If 'A' will not provide *non*-free software to 'B', 'B' will not come to me, he will not not ask me, so I will not reject him, so there will be no reason for us to suffer. Doing nothing is neutral.
You could not have helped him more, and indeed, if the help was possible
> without modification, or maybe just with asking upstream to apply a patch > or something, you are then _less_ able to help 'B' than you would have > been if 'A' had given the software to 'B'.
May be, may be. May be 'B' will never come to me and will use supereditor till the end of the world without any need to modify it. Of course, everyone knows how good software is. Or probably, he will leave us (because he was very old), just after he get the CD. Who knows?
Furthermore, by stopping 'A' from distributing the software to 'C', who you have never seen don't know about his needs, you are acting in an unethical dictatorial-like fashion, because for a rather dubious reason, you have imposed your will on two third party persons who did not harm you in nothing.
Of course I am dictator, ethical dictator. I want everyone to act ethical and present examlpes which compel them to act ethical.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
