Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
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?
Shouldn't we make a distinction between short term benefits and
long term benefits?
Shouldn't we be focusing on development issues here?
If the only issue was short-term end-user benefits, everything in non-free
could go in main.
> 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?
> Also, you need to look at how many future efforts you are
> encouraging -- or discouraging -- by your treetment of this freely
> licensed module wrapping tool chain.
I agree on this point.
> 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?
--
Raul
Reply to: