Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)
Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy:
> > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> > true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.
> There's one single requirement for software to go in non-free: we have
> to be allowed to redistribute it.
> In some cases, the license prohibits the act of redistribution -- even
> if the software itself can be downloaded gratis from the author's
> website. That's when installer packages get written :-)
And so we have some almost meta-package in contrib, called
installers, that install software that do not even fit for
non-free. It's a strange workaround, to use contrib to provide
packages that we cannot even provide in non-free.
I'm puzzled. At first, I was thinking it was some kind of workaround
to avoid entering non-free but, in fact, it would be a workaround for
to enter debian for packages that would not be allowed at all in any
other case -- which is in fact more sensible, easier to understand.
Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
have a free software in contrib that will install it, without the
possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools.
Someone may say that are included in Debian only software estimated
needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 30000000 companies that
would switch over GNU/Linux if Microsoft Office was available.
That's ok if we stick to the policy. But I'm not sure it was the
spirit of the policy to allows that. And I think more important to
try to stick to the spirit of the policy than to it's letter. Because
changing its letter is always an option while changing its spirit is,
I'm sure you'll agree, definitely not an option.
I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
software, when installing it. Some packages clearly identified that
vrms can clearly identify, some package we can easily track and remove
completely at will. So people would know what they exactly have on
their computer. And I think that was the main point of the person who
started the thread, the ability for the user to track this non-free
software he got.
So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
software they install.
What do you think?
Not a native english speaker: