Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
I have overhauled and extended my old draft. See below, and please
comment. I'm not formally proposing this just yet. We should vote on
the alternatives together.
The draft below, broadly speaking:
* is advisory
* says `contrib'
Note that I'm going to be away from my email from Saturday the 11th to
Sunday the 19th inclusive, and will have a huge backlog when I get
back. I'll try to prioritise the committee list and at least read and
vote.
Ian.
BACKGROUND
1. The committee has been asked to rule on the question of whether
ndiswrapper should be in the `main' or `contrib' component of the
archive.
2. There are no technical reasons for ndiswrapper to be in main; nor
any for it to be in contrib. The Debian system and our own
development processes will work just as well either way.
3. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non-Debian (and typically
non-free) drivers to be used.
4. While there may be cases where ndiswrapper can be used with a
DFSG-free driver, these are exceptional and contrived, and none of
these drivers are available in Debian main.
5. We do not wish to overturn or change what we regard as established
political policy about the distinction between main and contrib,
and we do not wish to usurp the political authority of the Project
Leader or other Developers.
6. In the past, when the Committee has declined to issue an opinion
and instead simply passed nontechnical decisions to the Project
Leader and Delegates, no decision at all was forthcoming.
OPINION
7. This is not a technical issue, so does not fall into our explicit
remit. However the Project would benefit from a clear statement of
opinion by a decisionmaking body, even if it is only advisory.
8. Our reading of the current Policy Manual wording is that
ndiswrapper falls fairly clearly into the area currently defined
for `contrib'.
9. We are by and large satisfied with the intent behind the language
in the Policy Manual regarding the distinction between non-free and
contrib. However, the language in the Policy Manual is somewhat
unclear and ambiguous, and by some readings inconsistent.
CONCLUSIONS
10. ndiswrapper belongs in contrib.
11. References to `package outside of main', `packages which are not
in our archive at all', etc., in the relevant part of the Policy
Manual, should be changed to refer to `programs' or `software'.
12. The policy manual should be clarified to make it clear that free
software to talk to non-free software over a network can remain in
main. In our opinion the relevant principle is that:
(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 of free software Y, then Y goes in contrib.
(ii) However, if free software Y is used by the user or administrator
of the Debian system to cope to with someone else's use of non-free
software X on another system not under their control, then Y goes
in main.
REQUESTS
13. ftpmasters and the ndiswrapper maintainers should cooperate to move
nsidwrapper to contrib.
14. The Policy Manual maintainers should take steps to adjust the
language regarding main and contrib to clarify and improve it. The
Maintainers should have regard to any opinions from other
Developers, in particular the Leader, about the correct effect.
15. This decision is advisory; we are exercising only our power to
offer advice (Constitution 6.1 clause 5). However, we strongly
recommend that all parties concerned follow our advice unless and
until a contrary statement is issued by the Project Leader or
Delegate(s) (such as the ftpmaster team).
THANKS
15. Thanks to Robert Millan for raising the issue; to Wouter Verhelst
and others for their input on the topic; and to Andres Salomon for
his ongoing efforts in maintaining the ndiswrapper packages.
16. Thanks also to everyone involved in this discussion for the civil,
clear and constructive manner in which the argument has been
conducted.
Ian.
Reply to: