Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 29 Mar 2006, Raul Miller spake thusly:
> On 3/28/06, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2006, Raul Miller spake thusly:
>>> I think the difference has to do with intent, and expected use
>>> patterns
>>> -- not just at the command line, but in overall terms.
>>>
>>> And a related question is: what free software effort would be
>>> harmed by putting ndiswrapper in config?
>
>> Err, wrong question. End users benefit from having this interface
>> to networking drivers around; it gives them more freedom in dealing
>> with hardware they might not have a choice about.
>
> How was that the wrong question?
Our goal isn't to dump as much stuff out of Debian as possible
unless some free software effort is impacted. Our goal is to produce
the best free OS out there, imparting maximal utility to our users.
> Shouldn't we make a distinction between short term benefits and
> long term benefits?
I do not see a temporal dimension here, really. There is an
implementation of a tool chain that allows users to wrap drivers
written for another OS. The tool chain is licensed under a free
license.
> Shouldn't we be focusing on development issues here?
No, we should be trying for balance between development and
unitlity to end users -- as long as the software under discussion is
free.
> If the only issue was short-term end-user benefits, everything in
> non-free could go in main.
Straw man.
>> Helping users make use of hardware they are saddled with adds to
>> the quality of implementation; and since users come high on our
>> list of things to care about, we should not be looking at "is some
>> free software effort damaged if we move things out of debian, even
>> if users selecting just debian (like, CD based users in areas with
>> poor network connectivity) have to jump through hoops"
>
> But what what distinguishes ndiswrapper from anything else in
> contrib?
Like gcc, it is ready for tyhe user to provide input for it to
process. Like gcc, it needs input to produce output (wrapped loadable
kernel module), but does not _depend_ on the input, any more than gcc
does.
Basing classification on some nebulous “intent” rather than
well defined licensing terms should be avoided -- and utility of
software is also highly subjective. There is a free CIPE driver you
can test your install of ndiswrapperon. Yup, there are better
implementations -- native implementations -- of that driver, but the
sub optimal utility does not prevent us from distributing (*shudder*)
vi. Or brainfuck.
>> If ndiswrapper is not in my universe, I may never get around
>> to writing fee windows drivers that could also be used on Linux :)
>
> I don't understand this one.
>
> Why wouldn't "Contrib" be in your universe?
It is not in Debian.
manoj
--
PURGE COMPLETE.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: