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,
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,
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
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
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
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 distribute non-free
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
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 can get
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
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 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 distribute non-free
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. Spiridonov
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
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 from
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
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 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, we are busy with helping S
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
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
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, we are busy with helping S
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 doing
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:
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
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
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
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
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?
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 what
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
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
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 of this program, who does
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. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 of this program, who
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
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
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
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
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
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
Raul Miller wrote:
I downloaded program 'A' from non-free section of Debian and started to
distribute it. I made a copy for my friend Bin and for my friend Laden.
After this I erased the program from my hard drive. I dropped it. After
I dropped my copy the third mate Usama got the copy from
Raul Miller wrote:
So, when I'm talking about prevent distribution of, I'm talking
about prevent distribution of non-free, not prevent distribution
of upstream.
Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP,
Sven Luther 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.
Ok.
I maintain he
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 dropping
non-free will broke
Raul Miller wrote:
I downloaded program 'A' from non-free section of Debian and started to
distribute it. I made a copy for my friend Bin and for my friend Laden.
After this I erased the program from my hard drive. I dropped it. After
I dropped my copy the third mate Usama got the copy from
Raul Miller wrote:
So, when I'm talking about prevent distribution of, I'm talking
about prevent distribution of non-free, not prevent distribution
of upstream.
Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian
developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows
Raul Miller wrote:
I demostrate how one can start to distribute a program, continue to
distribute a program and stop to distribute a program. All three actions
do not contradict any ethical rule.
If you still think that erasing something from my hard drive (free or
non-free) is not ethical,
Sven Luther 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.
Ok.
I maintain he
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 dropping
non-free
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?
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Exactly. I hope you do not think, that non-free software is a healing
water.
No, I think it's more like a hammer.
This is the difference in our points. I think that non-free software is
dangerous and mostly evil like a narcotic and should be immediately
dropped
Raul Miller wrote:
I wish I knew why you think it's evil for Debian to distribute non-free.
You've stated that it's an ethical issue for you. You've drawn an analogy
with illegal drugs. You've stated that it's not good for Debian's
developers or users [regardless of any good that the software
Raul Miller wrote:
[*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it
also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate
for that need is distributed instead).
That is true, and that is why I propose to drop non-free. Debian will
not have non-free to
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
[*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it
also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate
for that need is distributed instead).
That is true, and that is why I propose to drop non-free. Debian will
not have
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Exactly. I hope you do not think, that non-free software is a healing
water.
No, I think it's more like a hammer.
This is the difference in our points. I think that non-free software is
dangerous and mostly evil like a narcotic and should be immediately
dropped
Raul Miller wrote:
I wish I knew why you think it's evil for Debian to distribute non-free.
You've stated that it's an ethical issue for you. You've drawn an analogy
with illegal drugs. You've stated that it's not good for Debian's
developers or users [regardless of any good that the
Raul Miller wrote:
[*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it
also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate
for that need is distributed instead).
That is true, and that is why I propose to drop non-free. Debian will
not have non-free to
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
[*] preventing the distribution of program 'A' to people who need it
also contradicts human ethics (unless something at least as adequate
for that need is distributed instead).
That is true, and that is why I propose to drop non-free. Debian will
not
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
