> Remi Vanicat wrote: > >> Secondly, in #2 the fact that the package is or not in non-free change >> only one thing : if B need the package it will be more difficult for >> him to find it. >
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. > >> 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. -- Rémi Vanicat
