Anthony Towns wrote:
Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.
That's a matter for debate, not assertion. Of all the choices available
to us, IMO, Debian distributing non-free *does* serve human interests
in the most effective way.
And you are sure, there is nothing wrong with this, aren't you?
Please help me get my wireless access points configured; the only
software I have for them is Windows only and doesn't seem to work,
and I can't seem to make them use the same ESSID.
Sorry, can't help you. :(
I don't see why you'd feel bad in any way at having to say "sorry, can't
help you" to requests like that. If you actually do, I think you should
seriously consider changing your outlook.
I want, please help me. This will probably make my life much more
happier. Can you please tell me, do you think there are some bad
consequences from distributing non-free? Is everything completely
O.K. with this from your point of view?
What are all this GPL, LGPL, BSD and Artisic about? What is the reason
to value them more than non-free licenses?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
