On 2004-01-09 01:58:46 +0000 Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
wrote:
Personally, I don't understand how people can, on the one hand,
suggest
nonfree.org as a reasonable way of helping our users, and on the other
hand refuse to work on it claiming such behaviour would be unethical,
even though it supports the arguments they're making and would aid in
a goal they seem to think is desirable.
For me, at least, I think nonfree.org is a forseeable consequence of
the GR, but I still would not think it ethical to support it because I
believe it does not help our users, long-term. It's just an answer to
the question "what will happen to current non-free?" that seems to
worry some people.
Meanwhile, I don't understand how people can argue that there is
nothing special about non-free being on the debian systems, yet a much
smaller-scale version of a similar infrastructure is beyond the rest
of the world.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
