Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

bian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in the world! -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in the world! I am not sure that you completely understand

Re: non-free and users?

helps them?" And the real answer should come from the users. Shouldn't the real question be "Is distributing non-free compatible with Debian developer ethics?" -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

tency, we should stop distributing that software on moral grounds. Exactly. I hope you do not think, that non-free software is a healing water. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

ethically). By compelling himself to non-ethical actions Debian is not able to go to his goal that effective that he can. By choosing to distribute free-only software Debian will act on the very high level, directly going to his goal, helping people. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

g non-free will be not that effective, in comparision if I produce free. It is not a right way to realize my aim. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

what Debian does, please tell me, what exactly do you mean. But if you really agree that things which you are doing hurt your honor, I will immideately stop saying this. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

Sergey Spiridonov wrote: > if you really agree that things which you are doing hurt your honor, I will immideately stop saying this. I think that acting non-ethical sometimes does not make anybody non-ethical. To accuse someone, that he is non-ethical one should summarize ethical and

Re: non-free and users?

which i am part, is acting non-ethically. 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? -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Sven Luther wrote: I am saying that you are diffaming me, and thus hurting my honor, by I did not find the word diffamate or diffamation in dictionary. Probably it is something like lie? saying that because of the work i do on non-free package, i personnally and

Re: non-free and users?

Daniel Burrows wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a package with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical, since it help people to solve their tas

Re: non-free and users?

be done by Debian, but will increase it. I see no other solution. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

rget this for now in the discussion. I agree with you completely. There can be such a packages. I do not propose to forget about it, but just to delay its discussion, till we finish this one. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

more concerned with the universality of our decisions than the result of those decisions. I am concerned with the result of Debian decisions as well as with how they will be realized. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

the legal issues. 1. I am not sure, if harmed is the rigth word for this. I will suffer because of the fact that I am in a such a situation. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

Remi Vanicat wrote: Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] I failed to prove that *just* refraining from distributing non-free software would be *more* ethical. So I do not think doing only this is enough. On the other side distributing non-free does not serves human eth

Re: non-free and users?

Sergey Spiridonov wrote: And if some of our user found helpful to have a non-free repository, and we could give it to them, we should. Debian developers should not do this if they are very busy with the free software, shouldn't they? -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

se to agree with some non-free license before. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

on free can produce more problem than working on non-free? -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

Remi Vanicat wrote: Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Remi Vanicat wrote: Debian developers should have the choose to do what they want. They already don't have the choice when someone asks them to help to fix the bug in the source of the program with the describ

Re: non-free and users?

Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:47:42PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: I will be pleased if you will explain, how this can happen, if Debian will act in proposed way: working on free instead of non-free. How working on free can produce more problem than working on non-free? I

Re: non-free and users?

a limited period of time. We can count case #2, but case #1 will stay uncounted. The fact that it is difficult to count doesn't mean we should ignore it. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

ftware we should choose not to distribute. 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? Please name them, if you think there are some. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

e. I find out it just recently, since I wondered, why some developers are talking about this all the time :) -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

Anthony Towns wrote: Damn, I thought I already replied to this. Apparently not. On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this might be worth talking about; but there isn't. There

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

eping the software completely free. Doesn't "We promise to prefer free software to non-free." address it good enough? Since Debian prefers free, it should be clear that the free software will be kept free. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

rk on non-free." The problem with an approach you try to advocate is that Debian currently loses support of those who do not want to support and distribute non-free. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org

e non-free distribution. Non-free program can be less useful in some cases. #1 is simply wrong and can be easely argued. #2 can be argued, with some efforts. #3 is so basic and fundamental, that I have no idea where to start with. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint

, Sergey Spiridonov signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

bian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in the world! -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Another Non-Free Proposal

Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Great, thank you Anthony. Distributing non-free is not good for Debian nor for Debian users. Debian can become the first free distribution in the world! I am not sure that you completely understand the

Re: non-free and users?

helps them?" And the real answer should come from the users. Shouldn't the real question be "Is distributing non-free compatible with Debian developer ethics?" -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

ould stop distributing that software on moral grounds. Exactly. I hope you do not think, that non-free software is a healing water. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

lly). By compelling himself to non-ethical actions Debian is not able to go to his goal that effective that he can. By choosing to distribute free-only software Debian will act on the very high level, directly going to his goal, helping people. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, em

Re: non-free and users?

ee will be not that effective, in comparision if I produce free. It is not a right way to realize my aim. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

Debian does, please tell me, what exactly do you mean. But if you really agree that things which you are doing hurt your honor, I will immideately stop saying this. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl

Re: non-free and users?

Sergey Spiridonov wrote: > if you really agree that things which you are doing hurt your honor, I will immideately stop saying this. I think that acting non-ethical sometimes does not make anybody non-ethical. To accuse someone, that he is non-ethical one should summarize ethical and

Re: non-free and users?

part, is acting non-ethically. 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? -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of

Re: non-free and users?

Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Sven Luther wrote: I am saying that you are diffaming me, and thus hurting my honor, by I did not find the word diffamate or diffamation in dictionary. Probably it is something like lie? saying that because of the work i do on non-free package, i personnally and the

Re: non-free and users?

Daniel Burrows wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: Producing and distributing non-free is ethical. If I produce a package with closed source and distribute it, it is ethical, since it help people to solve their tas

Re: non-free and users?

by Debian, but will increase it. I see no other solution. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

the discussion. I agree with you completely. There can be such a packages. I do not propose to forget about it, but just to delay its discussion, till we finish this one. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

more concerned with the universality of our decisions than the result of those decisions. I am concerned with the result of Debian decisions as well as with how they will be realized. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe

Re: non-free and users?

ues. 1. I am not sure, if harmed is the rigth word for this. I will suffer because of the fact that I am in a such a situation. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

Remi Vanicat wrote: Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] I failed to prove that *just* refraining from distributing non-free software would be *more* ethical. So I do not think doing only this is enough. On the other side distributing non-free does not serves human ethics

Re: non-free and users?

Sergey Spiridonov wrote: And if some of our user found helpful to have a non-free repository, and we could give it to them, we should. Debian developers should not do this if they are very busy with the free software, shouldn't they? -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: non-free and users?

se to agree with some non-free license before. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

#x27;t solve some problem which package A ought to be useful for" becomes a much larger problem with your proposed solution. I will be pleased if you will explain, how this can happen, if Debian will act in proposed way: working on free instead of non-free. How working on free can produce more

Re: non-free and users?

Remi Vanicat wrote: Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Remi Vanicat wrote: Debian developers should have the choose to do what they want. They already don't have the choice when someone asks them to help to fix the bug in the source of the program with the described non-f

Re: non-free and users?

Raul Miller wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:47:42PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: I will be pleased if you will explain, how this can happen, if Debian will act in proposed way: working on free instead of non-free. How working on free can produce more problem than working on non-free? I

Re: non-free and users?

od of time. We can count case #2, but case #1 will stay uncounted. The fact that it is difficult to count doesn't mean we should ignore it. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

choose not to distribute. 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? Please name them, if you think there are some. -- Best regards, Sergey Spirido

Re: non-free and users?

out it just recently, since I wondered, why some developers are talking about this all the time :) -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

Anthony Towns wrote: Damn, I thought I already replied to this. Apparently not. On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this might be worth talking about; but there isn't. There are so

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

g the software completely free. Doesn't "We promise to prefer free software to non-free." address it good enough? Since Debian prefers free, it should be clear that the free software will be kept free. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: "keep non-free" proposal

n-free." The problem with an approach you try to advocate is that Debian currently loses support of those who do not want to support and distribute non-free. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org

e non-free distribution. Non-free program can be less useful in some cases. #1 is simply wrong and can be easely argued. #2 can be argued, with some efforts. #3 is so basic and fundamental, that I have no idea where to start with. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint

support of free hardware. This will encourage hardware producers to be more opened. Supporting non-free hardware gives carte blanche to the hardware produces, it is like, hey, produce non-free, we will be happy to support it! 1. Interesting, that Symbian SDK toolchain uses gcc. -- Best regards, Sergey