Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> On 2/21/06, Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > I miswrote `achieved' as `required'. So I withdraw my previous motion
> > and propose the following instead, and call for a vote.
> >
> > WHEREAS
> >
> > 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
> our jurisdiction.
I think the question of interpreting the existing policy is reasonably
technical, yes - questions like `does this depend on that' and `what
does this general language mean in this specific case'.
If we think they're not technical issues then we should issue an
opinion anyway, IMO. In practice in past when we've punted things
away saying `this is not a technical issue' no-one else has stepped up
to provide an opinion. So we could say something like:
X. We believe this is not a technical issue, so does not fall into
our explicit remit. This decision is therefore advisory.
However, we recommend that all parties concerned follow our
advice unless and until a contrary statement is issued by the
Project Leader or an appropriate Delegate.
> > 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
> > Leader.
>
> This language suggests that we're not dealing with technical
> issues.
My aim here is to restrict ourselves to the narrow technicalities[1]
and to try to interpret and clarify rather than change or make policy.
The policy is by and large reasonable from a technical point of view.
[1] Of course `technicalities' != `technical issues'.
> > 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".
We can `conclude' whatever we like. To conclude is to complete a
chain or argument or reasoning, and thus form a conclusion (ie, a
grounded opinion).
> > (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.
But then the software wasn't available in Debian at all. contrib
seems clearly indicated for that.
> You've put some very good suggestions into your proposal, but I'm
> not going to vote for it as it stands.
OK. Well, I'm happy to accept refinements.
Ian.
Reply to: