Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 3/3/06, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > For example, if there's free software being developed against
> > WINE (as a UI, or whatever) then that's sufficient reason right
> > there, to leave it in main.
>
> Counting the toy utilities that are bundled with wine, or only other free
> software? I don't know of anyone developing free software against wine.
> I've used it to develop *non-*free software; I could *imagine* someone
> developing free software against wine, but I can also *imagine* someone
> developing free software against ndiswrapper.
I think using WINE to develop non-free software could count as
a use for wine sufficient to keep it in main. We don't require that
our users use packages for free software development, just that
package use doesn't require non-free softwaer.
> > I'm willing to hear reasons why this reasoning is wrong, but if we're
> > going to go that route I think we to think those reasons through and
> > come up with some suggested policy that distinguishes between the WINE
> > case and the cases that belong in Contrib.
>
> Well, I would note that at this point, we seem to no longer be talking about
> confirming existing policy; if we were, I would expect that more weight
> would be given to AJ's proposed criteria, since as an ftpmaster he's pretty
> much the resident authority on what this de facto policy is.
That's fine -- but if we're going to go that route I think we should propose
that the text of existing policy be updated to accurately reflect
these criteria.
> But there's plenty of documentation for writing NDIS drivers, just as there
> is for writing Windows applications. AFAIK, you can develop NDIS drivers on
> Debian using mingw just as you can develop Windows applications this way.
> Doesn't that leave as the only distinction between wine and ndiswrapper the
> theory that one is interesting to free software developers and the other
> isn't? Does this mean wine and ndiswrapper belong in the same section, or
> do we then shuffle packages back and forth between contrib and main
> depending on the results of surveys of some kind?
If ndiswrapper is of significant use for people developing windows
applications, I think that's sufficient justification for it to be in main.
But I don't think it belongs in main if the only uses that put it in main
are hypothetical.
If we want to be fully abstract, a piece of software is just a (huge)
integer. The integer itself is not what matters. What matters
is what it represents to people.
--
Raul
Reply to: