Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 2/21/06, Ian Jackson <email@example.com> wrote:
> I miswrote `achieved' as `required'. So I withdraw my previous motion
> and propose the following instead, and call for a vote.
> 1. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non-free drivers to be used.
> 2. While there may be cases where ndiswrapper can be used
> with a DFSG-free driver, these are exceptional.
Are these technical issues? I'm on the fence about whether these
are or are not technical issues,. If they're not then they're outside
> 3. The Committee is by and large satisfied with the intent behind the
> language in the Policy Manual regarding the distinction between
> non-free and contrib.
> 4. The Committee does not wish to overturn or change established
> political policy about the distinction between main and contrib,
> and does not wish to usurp the political authority of the Project
This language suggests that we're not dealing with technical
> 5. The Committee's reading of the current Policy Manual wording is
> that ndiswrapper falls fairly clearly into the area currently
> defined for `contrib'.
> 6. However, the language in the Policy Manual is somewhat unclear and
> ambiguous, and by some readings inconsistent.
This point also makes me dubious about our jurisdiction on this issue.
> THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT
If this is outside our jurisdiction (and I suspect that's the case), I
think this should be "RECOMMENDS THAT" not "CONCLUDES THAT".
Also note that this issue (what is the software used with) covers
a lot of ground, and that the general question of interoperability
is something that I think is of fairly broad importance to the free
> (i) If the user or administrator who is in charge of the Debian
> installation would have to adopt non-free software X to make
> sensible use free software Y, then Y goes in contrib.
Note that in the case of ndiswrapper this issue is a time-sensitive
issue. There appear to have been times when the user could have
made sensible use of ndiswrapper installing only free software.
Since then, the free software in question has been ported to
linux. But this concept of "sensible use" seems... flighty. I think
we need to allow that someone might have made reasonable
decisions in the past.
You've put some very good suggestions into your proposal, but I'm
not going to vote for it as it stands.