why free?

[Markus]

Hello,
first let me say thank you for all the replays.

> Easy. Show me a situation where non-free software is good (note: by good
> I don't mean technically better but that the fact that it is non-Free is
> good), and there you will have the exception that breaks the "always".
> 
> So far I haven't found any situation where loosing one of the four
> freedoms is good, but I can be proved wrong. Can you help me?

yes your are right. I think that its never good to lose freedom, too.
But my question is more if non-free software is always bad or are there
 situations were you could say "It's bad that i don't have all the freedoms,
but i just need the tool do get a job done and if it does the job it's ok"
For example if i get an PDF which can displayed only by the
acrobat reader. Should i say "the reader is bad because it's non-free" and
don't read the PDF or should i just use the acrobat reader to read this one
document? I think you could tell very few people to do the first thing.

Basically i see people who use the PC like a microwave or a washing machine
if it does it job than it's ok. It would be hard to convince people to not
"clean the
suit" just because you don't like the license of the "washing machine" and
at the
moment there is no free "washing machine". I think thats one of the reasons
because Debian still keep their non-free archive. They could creat a
complete free
OS without non-free, but the decided that maybe someone have to "clean the
suit" and than a non-free "washing machine" is better than no "washing
machine"
at all.
I think about people who just want to start the PC and play some games. I
think
you can't convince him to install GNU/Linux just because of the license. If
he can't
play the games on GNU/Linux he will not switch. He just want to have some
hours
fun. Is this bad?
Or people who just want a better typewriter, he buy a PC with windows and MS
Office
or StarOffice and write his letter. Why sould he switch to GNU/Linux and
maybe have
problems to print because of a missing or bad printing driver or have
problems to
open and edit the files from the fellows. For him the PC is just a tool,
like the old
mechanically typewriter. It does it job and thats all he want. Is this bad?

I agree that free software is always better and there is no argument which
makes
non-free software better because of the non-free license. But what i ask is:
Is the
license always the most important thinks or are there situations were other
thinks
are just more important?

-- 
5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More +++

-- 
5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f�r Mail, Message, More +++