Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> > What's so different between my own non-free program and my own non-free
> > card which requires a non-free driver to work with ?
>
> You didn't make the card.
What relevance does it have ?
If I compile the program and thus need the library, it's because I want to
be able to use it. (And I can compile a non-free program that I didn't make)
In both case, the goal of the user is to use something. You were speaking
of relevance of the finality.
> > And we need ndiswrapper because our users can't completely control the
> > drivers that come with the hardware they have received or been given.
>
> This is an absurd argument.
Sorry, I don't see why. It's the same kind of constraint for our users.
> In particular, it would suggest that any non-free device driver should
> be allowed.
Yes, our social contract suggest to use non-free for that. However since
ndiswrapper is DFSG-free we don't need to put it there.
Contrib really ought to be used only when the package "depends" (in the
sense of the control field) on something non-free (or should depend on it
if the thing would have been packaged) or for the few installation
wrappers that we have like:
- f-prot-installer
- quake2-data
- msttcorefonts
- flashplugin-nonfree
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: