Anthony Towns wrote:
The question is whether we do it
immediately, damn the consequences, or whether we do everything we can
to limit the negative consequences for our users (and possibly the
FSF or the community in general), and take our time about it.
One who wants to chop off cat's tail, s
Anthony Towns wrote:
The question is whether we do it
immediately, damn the consequences, or whether we do everything we can
to limit the negative consequences for our users (and possibly the
FSF or the community in general), and take our time about it.
One who wants to chop off cat's tail, shoul
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:14:15PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Free Software will stay in Debian just because it is preffered and
useful. Not because of some stupid philosophical idea.
A lot Debian developers happen to care about these philosophical
ideas.
I
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:14:15PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Free Software will stay in Debian just because it is preffered and
useful. Not because of some stupid philosophical idea.
A lot Debian developers happen to care about these philosophical
ideas.
I doubt
Raul Miller wrote:
New: "1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free"
I propose we change the title of section 1 of the social contract,
and the first sentence so they read:
1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free
We promise to keep the f
Raul Miller wrote:
New: "1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free"
I propose we change the title of section 1 of the social contract,
and the first sentence so they read:
1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free
We promise to keep the free s
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:08:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Are you sure, that free software have higher priority for your
than non-free?
Execuse me please, if I abused you somehow, but it is really not clear
for me from what you were saying. I show my
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:08:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Are you sure, that free software have higher priority for your
than non-free?
Execuse me please, if I abused you somehow, but it is really not clear
for me from what you were saying. I show my
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No, there
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
from distribution.
Raul Miller wrote:
It is i
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
from distribution.
Raul Miller wrote:
It is if you ca
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
from distribution.
It is if you can get the software
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily, it might be that you can't get a copy from
the author.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:57:35PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Of course, but in this case it is not the License which prevents him
from distribution.
It is if you can get the software fro
Anthony Towns wrote:
I ask you to answer, the following questions.
One of the best ways to get people to do what you want them to do,
is to do it yourself first.
And you follow this rule all the time, of course.
I think, it is
important for our discussion, for me, for you, for Debian and
Anthony Towns wrote:
I ask you to answer, the following questions.
One of the best ways to get people to do what you want them to do,
is to do it yourself first.
And you follow this rule all the time, of course.
I think, it is
important for our discussion, for me, for you, for Debian and the w
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:44:19AM +0100, Sergey V.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
all the non-free software people might want to use with free software,
we'd be happy to. Our choice is to dist
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:44:19AM +0100, Sergey V. Spirid
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
all the non-free software people might want to use with free software,
we'd be happy to. Our choice is to dist
Anthony Towns wrote:
That is why it is obvious for me, why working
and distributing free is always better then working and distributing
non-free.
You seem to avoid answering my questions. It is your right to do so
without any explanation. I think we will be more productive if will try
to help
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
This is caused by distribution under non-free license to the person who
rejects me to
Anthony Towns wrote:
That is why it is obvious for me, why working
and distributing free is always better then working and distributing
non-free.
You seem to avoid answering my questions. It is your right to do so
without any explanation. I think we will be more productive if will try
to help bet
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
This is caused by distribution under non-free license to the person who
rejects me to get
Raul Miller wrote:
I think we got an agreement on what is that action which is the source
of all problems specific to non-free. It is distribution under non-free
license.
No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
For example, if the problem is that you can't distr
Raul Miller wrote:
I think we got an agreement on what is that action which is the source
of all problems specific to non-free. It is distribution under non-free
license.
No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
For example, if the problem is that you can't distribut
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you mean that by distributing non-free we do the best what we can?
Why? Even if we can work on free instead of non-free?
When there is no completely free alternative, we distribute the best
alternatives available.
If you think counter examples exist, please describe them
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you mean that by distributing non-free we do the best what we can?
Why? Even if we can work on free instead of non-free?
When there is no completely free alternative, we distribute the best
alternatives available.
If you think counter examples exist, please describe them.
I d
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No, there aren't. There might be bad consequences from forcing people to use
no
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No, there aren't. There might be bad consequences from forcing people to use
non-f
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:39:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I think we agreed that rejecting to help 'B', when we are busy with
helping 'A' is O.K. It will be completely ethical to act in this way.
It produces no evil to answer "Sorry, w
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:39:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I think we agreed that rejecting to help 'B', when we are busy with
helping 'A' is O.K. It will be completely ethical to act in this way.
It produces no evil to answer "Sorry, w
Raul Miller wrote:
The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
care about it.
False.
We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring about it.
Do you mean that by distributing non-free we
Raul Miller wrote:
The fact, that someone will suffer because of non-free situations
which can happen after distribution, can be ignored because we do not
care about it.
False.
We do the best we can -- this is the opposite of not caring about it.
Do you mean that by distributing non-free we do th
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Tell me, how will you help your friend which inadvertently bought a
nvidia graphic card instead of a radeon one to get 3D ? How will you
I will suggest him to buy radeon and to sell nvidia.
Well, You will give me the money that this operation will cost me?
How much do
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Tell me, how will you help your friend which inadvertently bought a
nvidia graphic card instead of a radeon one to get 3D ? How will you
I will suggest him to buy radeon and to sell nvidia.
Well, You will give me the money that this operation will cost me?
How much do you need
Raul Miller wrote:
One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine,
but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be
*distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce
described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example he
Raul Miller wrote:
One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine,
but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be
*distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce
described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example her
Raul Miller wrote:
One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine,
but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be
*distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce
described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example here,
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
What you&#x
Raul Miller wrote:
One can package software with most restrictive license you can imagine,
but this can not produce any ethical problem, until it will be
*distributed*. If distribution is not performed, it can not produce
described non-ethical situations, neither #1 nor #2.
In your example here, i
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:59:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I mean, that software can not be _evil_. As well as narcotics. As well
as a gun. It is a human, who produce an _evil_. It is a human who
acts non-ethical, or produce non-ethical situations.
What you're
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs?
I will reformulate this question, to avoid misunderstaning:
What is wrong with associated actions regarding non-free programs?
--
Best
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I said that by redirecting efforts and resources from non-free to free
we will reduce amount of unethical situations. You say that redirecting
efforts and resources from non-free to
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs?
I will reformulate this question, to avoid misunderstaning:
What is wrong with associated actions regarding non-free programs?
--
Best rega
Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:43:58PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
I said that by redirecting efforts and resources from non-free to free
we will reduce amount of unethical situations. You say that redirecting
efforts and resources from non-free to free
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 huma
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
wrong.
Thanks.
You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
problem for someone, while i really don't see how someone having access
to a non-free package from debian that he can eit
Sven Luther wrote:
I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as
clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute
non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debian can do. It was
wrong and stupid to claim opposite from my side. This fact doesn't
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 int
Sven Luther wrote:
Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
wrong.
Thanks.
You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
problem for someone, while i really don't see how someone having access
to a non-free package from debian that he can either n
Sven Luther wrote:
I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as
clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute
non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debian can do. It was
wrong and stupid to claim opposite from my side. This fact doesn't
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I
describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are
talking about.
Which description(s), specifically, are you referring
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I
describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are
talking about.
Which description(s), specifically, are you referring to
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
>
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
c
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
>
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
conse
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 20, 2004, at 04:25, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
but he can say "We refuse to do it, because we are busy with working
on free software replacement for what you are asking for and on other
free software. Packaging this can lead us and your to non-ethical
situations
Raul Miller wrote:
I already presented some examples (using GFDL). You indicated you didn't
want to talk about them. I've presented other examples, as well.
Note, I'm talking about "packages we distribute which do not satisfy
all of our guidelines" when I say "non-free". I don't really know
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 20, 2004, at 04:25, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
but he can say "We refuse to do it, because we are busy with working
on free software replacement for what you are asking for and on other
free software. Packaging this can lead us and your to non-ethical
situations,
Raul Miller wrote:
I already presented some examples (using GFDL). You indicated you didn't
want to talk about them. I've presented other examples, as well.
Note, I'm talking about "packages we distribute which do not satisfy
all of our guidelines" when I say "non-free". I don't really know wha
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:42:27AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Yes, but if we reject to distribute non-free because we are busy with
creating a free replacement or with working on/packaging of other free
software we are acting in very ethical way without necessity to
Remi Vanicat wrote:
If doing nothing is neutral, then doing nothing when someone needs help
is neutral.
Yes, I have to agree with you: doing nothing when someone needs help
and I am able[1] to help is non-ethical.
So if we don't package and distribute non-free package, we act in a
non-ethic
Remi Vanicat wrote:
You seem to always forget that the help B might ask you is to make a
debian package and to distribute it (so he can find it). If it is a
package that can go to non free, that mean that the license does not
forbid you to do it. But you want to debian to refuse this kind help
t
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:42:27AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Yes, but if we reject to distribute non-free because we are busy with
creating a free replacement or with working on/packaging of other free
software we are acting in very ethical way without necessity to
Remi Vanicat wrote:
If doing nothing is neutral, then doing nothing when someone needs help
is neutral.
Yes, I have to agree with you: doing nothing when someone needs help
and I am able[1] to help is non-ethical.
So if we don't package and distribute non-free package, we act in a
non-ethical wa
Remi Vanicat wrote:
You seem to always forget that the help B might ask you is to make a
debian package and to distribute it (so he can find it). If it is a
package that can go to non free, that mean that the license does not
forbid you to do it. But you want to debian to refuse this kind help
to
I forgive all accusation which were made against me, since it should be
very painful to think about the case when the work(good work) is
rejected by Debian.
I never packaged or created myself a complete free program. So I am not
the best person to accuse those who work and act on the very high
I sincerely apologize for those who think, that my opinion is offending.
I understand that my English is far from perfect and I can be wrong with
calling what is happening unethical (yes, I call *some* actions
unethical). I was free to select another word for this, like not
consequent or irrat
Raul Miller wrote:
If doing nothing is neutral, then doing nothing when someone needs help
is neutral.
Yes, I have to agree with you: doing nothing when someone needs help and
I am able[1] to help is non-ethical.
The "unethical behavior" you've been criticizing is doing nothing when
someon
I forgive all accusation which were made against me, since it should be
very painful to think about the case when the work(good work) is
rejected by Debian.
I never packaged or created myself a complete free program. So I am not
the best person to accuse those who work and act on the very high
I sincerely apologize for those who think, that my opinion is offending.
I understand that my English is far from perfect and I can be wrong with
calling what is happening unethical (yes, I call *some* actions
unethical). I was free to select another word for this, like not
consequent or irratio
Sven Luther wrote:
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
Raul Miller wrote:
If doing nothing is neutral, then doing nothing when someone needs help
is neutral.
Yes, I have to agree with you: doing nothing when someone needs help and
I am able[1] to help is non-ethical.
The "unethical behavior" you've been criticizing is doing nothing when
someone asks
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
But he does! That is his fault!
And if someone will say to me, that it is me, who does this with my own
hands, I will be insulted.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Sven Luther wrote:
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 m
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
2. I, myself, using my own hands distribute non-free software to person
'B'. In this case I will suffer mostly[1] from my own actions! Probably
at this moment I will decide to cry "It's not me, who put me in such a
situation. It is an author
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I will try to present an example. Let's say we have program 'A'
without permition to distribute modified sources. It's not
absolutely non-free - you have freedom to learn how program works,
to modify it for your own needs, to di
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
But he does! That is his fault!
And if someone will say to me, that it is me, who does this with my own
hands, I will be insulted.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
2. I, myself, using my own hands distribute non-free software to person
'B'. In this case I will suffer mostly[1] from my own actions! Probably
at this moment I will decide to cry "It's not me, who put me in such a
situation. It is an author
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I will try to present an example. Let's say we have program 'A'
without permition to distribute modified sources. It's not
absolutely non-free - you have freedom to learn how program works,
to modify it for your own needs, to distri
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Yes I say (not because I wanted to hurt you) that Debian acts
non-ethically and I provided an example, how and in which case this
happens. Is it incorrect?
Yes it is. Your example do not convince me that this was non-ethical to
make non-free package.
This is good because
Remi Vanicat wrote:
Yes I say (not because I wanted to hurt you) that Debian acts
non-ethically and I provided an example, how and in which case this
happens. Is it incorrect?
Yes it is. Your example do not convince me that this was non-ethical to
make non-free package.
This is good because that
Raul Miller wrote:
there are a few non-free packages which we are allowed to distribute --
if Debian forbids the distribution of those packages [in the context
of Debian], we're making the same mistake that the authors of the more
non-free packages are making.
And what is this mistake?
Owners
Remi Vanicat wrote:
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
Where is this good, which we will decrease? Do you think that dr
Raul Miller wrote:
there are a few non-free packages which we are allowed to distribute --
if Debian forbids the distribution of those packages [in the context
of Debian], we're making the same mistake that the authors of the more
non-free packages are making.
And what is this mistake?
Owners of
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
But we will act non-ethical when we Will drop it, because there people
who need it know, as it is, with no modification.
Dropping non-free program X from Debian will not destroy the program. It
will still exist: upstream, package maintainer
Raul Miller wrote:
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That doesn't mean
that you'll never get cavities if you brush your teeth.
Good car care prevents water and air pollution. That
doesn't that there will be no water and air pollution
[not even from that car].
Etc.
Creating and distr
Remi Vanicat wrote:
But we will act non-ethical when we Will drop it, because there people
who need it know, as it is, with no modification.
Dropping non-free program X from Debian will not destroy the program. It
will still exist: upstream, package maintainer, those who downloaded it
will no
Remi Vanicat wrote:
I understand what you are talking about. There are Debain developers
who want Debian to act always ethical, and there are Debian developers
who think it is O.K. to act non-ethical for Debian, for example
because of the work they contribute to non-free.
I feel somewhat insult
Remi Vanicat wrote:
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute
non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical.
Where is this good, which we will decrease? Do you think that droppin
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Remi Vanicat wrote:
But we will act non-ethical when we Will drop it, because there people
who need it know, as it is, with no modification.
Dropping non-free program X from Debian will not destroy the program. It
will still exist: upstream, package maintainer
Raul Miller wrote:
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That doesn't mean
that you'll never get cavities if you brush your teeth.
Good car care prevents water and air pollution. That
doesn't that there will be no water and air pollution
[not even from that car].
Etc.
Creating and distributin
Remi Vanicat wrote:
But we will act non-ethical when we Will drop it, because there people
who need it know, as it is, with no modification.
Dropping non-free program X from Debian will not destroy the program. It
will still exist: upstream, package maintainer, those who downloaded it
will not lo
Remi Vanicat wrote:
I understand what you are talking about. There are Debain developers
who want Debian to act always ethical, and there are Debian developers
who think it is O.K. to act non-ethical for Debian, for example
because of the work they contribute to non-free.
I feel somewhat insulted t
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth
Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That doesn't mean
that you'll
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay.
Raul Miller wrote:
As an obvious example, consider any important package as X. Yeah, it's
fine for him as an individual to not distribute it, but we're talking
about Debian.
We are talking about Debian. For Debian is O.K. not to distribute
package X, if Debian doesn't have it on his ftp serve
Raul Miller wrote:
Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any
non-free packages (such as GFDL).
No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the
nonfree.org project, etc.
Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That doesn't mean
that you'll never
Sven Luther wrote:
If developer agrees with such a limitation he is not able to modify this
program to help his friend to adapt it for his needs. Developer will not
be able to distribute modifications to others who also need such an
improvenment. This contradicts human ethics, because help is
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
