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 better undertstanding of our's basic views, which lead us to
surpisingly different conclusions. Or, in case our basic views share the
same base, we probably can find a flaw in yours or mine logic chain. I
do not see much sence to discuss logic chain until we got an agreement
on basics.
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. The free software we distribute isn't affected _at all_.
If there will be no more free software to package and no work to do with
current software packages and Debian itself, you will be abolutely
right. It is not the case.
And you already demonstrate, that it is not obvious for you,
when you said, that we can produce more good if we will distribute
non-free. If it is possible, that distributing non-free can sometimes
produce more good, it is not obvious for you, why GPL is always better
then non-free.
Sometimes the choice isn't between GPL and non-free; it's between nothing
and non-free.
Yes, sometimes we need to do things which will get a value only in future.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
