Is it right providing free and non-free together? Or is it wrong?
The question is real old, dates back since the inception of Open Source Philosophy.
I have used distros like Ubuntu, Debian, Crunchbang, Slitaz and so on. Most of these distros are not 100% free, I do agree. And I used these distros knowingly that they violate the rule of FREEDOM. I always wanted to use only free stuff like Trisquel or gNewSense, but guys, sometimes I need something non-free. The main issues in my case is multimedia file types and applications. I confess that I cannot get away from mp3 nor flash player.
Many free / open source admirers, followers and evangelists still believe that the Debian way is ideal. I heard many FOSS guys admire the Debian way – providing both free and non-free. They argue that the user has the freedom to choose. For a long time, I also agreed with this argument. You choose what you feel best. Freedom our slavery.
What do you share, good or bad?
Well that is the question. What kind of gifts you may give your beloved ones? Good gifts or bad ones? The answer is obvious. Will anyone share ugly gifts to their friends? “Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a bread and snake, thinking he will choose what he wants ;-)” Debian way fails here. Debian provides good and bad at the same time. You can share sweetness, but not bitter. You can share truth, but not false. Bad things are not be shared even if it shares along with good ones. That way, you can share the way to freedom, but you must not lead anyone towards slavery – thats wrong. This insight make Debian philosophy grim. In addition with Freedom, Debian shares slavery too. It promotes freedom in one hand and serves the opposite with the other hand.