On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote: > > I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to > > not support non-free.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to. That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to stop putting any further effort into "non-free"? > > Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved? > > Here are some, with references: > "golden rule" (GNU Manifesto) "I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it." So how is this a justification for not sharing programs in non-free with others? > "friendship" (GNU Manifesto) How is "drop the distribution of non-free and let commercial outfits take up that distribution" an example of friendship? > _Why Software Should Be Free_ (entire essay) This is a good argument for replacing non-free software with free software. I don't see, however, the justification for dropping the distribution of "non-free" in the absence of such replacements. > "Proprietary Software" (Categories of Free and Non-Free Software) This talks about how to use words such as "free" and "non-free" in a meaningful fashion. This is not a basis for dropping distribution of non-free. Note, however, that in this context it would probably be better to call our "non-free" software something else more meaningful -- perhaps "semi-free". > _Freedom or Power?_ (entire essay) I see nothing here to justify dropping the distribution of non-free. > etc. > > >> http://www.apt-get.org/ > > > > What about BTS? > > Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla > now. Gnome is in main. -- Raul
