On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: > Did I understand you correctly? You are saying we can help people > more efficient if we will do the job which requieres less efforts but > produce the same amount of good? You mean that we can do more good > things with less efforts by packaging and distributing non-free, that > is why it is more efficient? Your idea is to maximize the good which is > possible to do at the fixed period of time?
Why not? Note that he's not defined what "good" is -- clearly, for different definitions of "good" the result is different. It's also clear that different people have differing ideas of "good" -- in fact, the same person is likely to have different concepts of "good" in different contexts. I think you're concerned about users getting "locked in" to some software that we can't support. If that's the case, then for you "good" would be some measure of how "locked in" users are. > There is nothing bad with this idea until we do not take in account > negative consequences of what we are doing. The problem with mostly all > arguments which justify non-free distribution is that they ignore > consequences of this action. It is not correct. I disagree that we're ignoring the consequences. I think we're quite aware of the consequences, and that each of us balances the good consequences against the bad consequences. I think, however, that different people have different ways of looking at things. In my mind, this means that the right choice is to decentralize decisions made against differing viewpoints. -- Raul
