Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 3/1/06, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
> 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 ...
Ok, so you disagree with the idea that these should go in contrib.
Let's grant that any "moving to contrib" will only happing in unstable/testing
(and future stable) releases of debian.
Do you see a problem with moving these to contrib? After all, everything
in contrib is free software. Contrib is for free software that's only useful
in conjunction with non-free software. Why do you think these other packages
should not go in contrib?
> > 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.
Except, that policy is based on 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.
I disagree. We have to make assumptions about how software is normally
used to define reasonable values for dpkg headers like Depends:
I don't think it's at all reasonable to claim we can't make assumptions that
we have to make.
--
Raul
Reply to: