Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
Stephen Gran <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Stephen Gran <email@example.com> writes:
>> > ndiswrapper is a piece of free software. It does not need non-free
>> > tools to build, and it will execute as a standalone app without any
>> > drivers. The fact that most people use it to enable non-free
>> > drivers to work is largely irrelevant - most people use wine and
>> > various other emulators for similar purposes.
>> > We have historically allowed all of these in main because we have
>> > defined the criteria for main in the SC and the DFSG. Repeatedly
>> > over the past year or two, several people have been trying to
>> > incrementally rewrite the foundation documents by stealth through a
>> > slow process of arguing for new interpretations of what these
>> > documents meant. I see this entire thread as yet one more attempt
>> > at this incremental revisionist work, and it is worrisome.
>> If you are arguing that people are acting in bad faith, then please
>> take the argument elsewhere. I find far more worrisome this attitude
>> that other developers are lying. I trust my fellow developers to be
>> honest with me; if you do not, please do not infect threads with such
> I said neither that anyone was lying, nor that they were acting in
> bad faith. I think that they are working for something they believe
> in and that they are going about it poorly.
You used the word "stealth" and "revisionist". These are not
contributions to an attitude of openness and trust.
> We have a procedure for
> changing what the foundation documents say, and it is not by filing
> bugs or appealing to the tech ctte.
The tech-ctte is there to address technical disputes.
> If people want the SC to say "We
> will never make the system require the use of a non-free component,
> and additionally we will not include in our main distribution software
> that is mostly used for running non-free code", I think they should just
> say so, rather than trying to advance that agenda in round about manner.
Once more, the SC does not address the main/contrib distinction at
all, as far as I can tell.