Raul Miller wrote: > > If Linux were on the majority of all desktops, I might buy into the > > idea that getting rid of non-free would benefit the majority of users. > > But, right now, the so many users use stuff so much less free than our > > "non-free" that that concept seems a bit silly.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:50:33PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > Is it very clever(ethical) to increase users dependency on non-free even > more? You're asking several different things here and maybe saying something I disagree with at the same time. Are we increasing users dependency on non-free? How? And what about the reverse? If someone has to use some other operating system because they can't use ours without some non-free package, what does that mean? If we make it easy to move from free-to-redistribute but doesn't-satisfy-all-guidelines packages to totally free packages, what does that mean? If a user can spend a little money to buy some non-redistributable software but instead uses debian with some of "non-free" packages non-free, what does that mean? Perhaps an analogy to chemical equilibrium is useful here. > Is it clever(ethical) to spend resources on non-free? Could you be more specific? For example, if we spend a few email messages on non-free, is that bette or worse than spending some extra machines and the effort to build a parrallel distribution? > Whith a little effort Debian can become the first free distibution > in the world. This will be a great day. I think you're about a decade late, but the sentiment sounds sweet. -- Raul
