Distributing non-free often lead to the described situation which contradicts ethics. This situation contradicts ethics regardless of the solution which I propose. You probably can find better solution, but I do not see it.
But it doesn't change the fact that you can't give him a modified version of the package.
Yes, you are right. I can't give him modified version of non-free package.
Yes, but the fact it is or not into debian does not change this, so the fact to put this package into debian is non-ethical only in what look like an "hypocritical" way (for lack of a better word) : it look like it is more ethical because the package is not into debian and you are not related with it, but it doesn't change a thing for the end user, so there are no better nor good created by this.
I'm not sure what is more worse and better in this two ways of acting. It seems to me that even just dropping is better, but it is hard to prove, as well as opposite.
But dropping with redirecting efforts and resources to other ethical actions, like support, fixing bugs, packaging and developing free software, will not reduce amount of good which can be produced by Debian, it will increase it. It will decrease the amount of unethical situations.
Thirdly, not all non-free enter in your example.
Yes, you are right. Please, let's limit ourselves with one example at a time. It is difficult to create an example which will cover all possible cases and licenses.
I do believe that there are package in non free where you can't find an example of situation when this package compel you to non-ethical action. And this one of the very important reason why I'm against removing non-free, So I can't forget 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
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
