> 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' ? 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'. 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. Friendly, Sven Luther
