Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The real question was "What is the difference for a package if it enables
> > the user to make use of his own software or his own hardware (whether free
> > or non-fee) ?"
>
> I don't think that's the real question in the context of ndiswrapper:
But we do have old libraries whose sole purpose is to support old
proprietary applications linked against them. Those libs are DFSG-free,
and we distribute them in main so that our users can make use of their
apps without too much troubles.
In a way, those libs are like ndiswrapper: they are useful only in
conjunction with some non-free stuff. But IMO it's not a reason to move
them in contrib ...
> Then again, maybe there's some ambiguity about what you mean
> by "his own software"? If a person does not own copyright on a
> piece of software, I think that that software is not "his own", though
> the instance -- the copy -- might be.
>
> This might seem like an overly narrow distinction, but it's exactly
> the sort of distinction that copyright law is based on. And, since
> we're engaged in making copies of software, and distributing
> those copies, this is a critically important question for us.
By "own software" I meant "local software not distributed by Debian", ie
some software that the user wants to run on his machine but that he's
hasn't installed via Debian.
> We've made promises in the social contract about what we will do
> in the context of making free software depend on other software.
> We haven't made any promises about making free software
> depend on hardware.
True. But we're diverging here, the placement of ndiswrapper is more an
issue of policy than an issue of the social contract.
> > I think both packages enable the user to use "something he has" (whether
> > software or hardware) and that it doesn't make much sense to treat them
> > differently when both are DFSG free.
>
> What you said here does not make sense to me. I have never encountered
> a piece of hardware which satisfies the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
"Both" refers to "both packages" (library and ndiswrapper). (and not
software and hardware)
Here's the full parallel :
The library is free, has no reverse depends in main, is thus only provided
for the user to compile and use software coming outside of Debian. We
can't assume anything about the software that the user will use.
Ndiswrapprer is free, has no reverse depends in main, is thus only
provided for the user to make use of some piece of hardware. We can't
assume anything about the hardware and the NDIS driver that the user will
use.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: