"non-free" installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.

[Tore Anderson <tore@linpro.no>]

  I've noticed there's quite a few almost-empty packages lurking in
 the archive, whose sole purpose seems to be to download non-free
 software and install it on a users' systems.

  I don't like the fact that these seem to be (randomly) scattered
 over main and contrib.  Although the installer packages themselves
 certainly are Free, I feel the social contract is being violated
 when I have main and contrib in my sources.list file, but after
 having completed the installation of a package from these sections,
 non-free software is installed on my system.

  Here's a quick list of suspected packages:

    vtkdata-installer               optional
    acl-installer                   contrib/devel
    acl-pro-installer               contrib/devel
    atokx                           contrib/utils
    daemontools-installer           contrib/misc
    djbdns-installer                contrib/net
    f-prot-installer                contrib/utils
    flashplugin-nonfree             optional
    hyperspec                       optional
    ibm-jdk1.1-installer            contrib/devel
    int-fiction-installer           contrib/games
    lw-per-installer                contrib/devel
    lw-pro-installer                contrib/devel
    msttcorefonts                   contrib/graphics
    nvidia-kernel-src               contrib/x11
    nvidia-glx-src                  contrib/x11
    qmailanalog-installer           contrib/mail
    quake2-data                     contrib/games
    roxen-ssl                       contrib/web
    roxen2-ssl                      contrib/web
    sdic-edict                      contrib/text
    sdic-gene95                     contrib/text
    setiathome                      contrib/misc
    realplayer                      net

  I've not verified all of these being such installer packages for
 non-free software, nor do I claim it to be complete.  Just to give
 you a rough idea.  Also, they're of different nature -- some install
 the non-free software from their post-installation scripts, while
 others install a script in /usr/sbin/ which will do the installation
 of the non-free software when run.

  I'd like to submit bugs on these, asking them to move to non-free.
 So consider this email an invitation to discussion before a mass-bug
 filing.

  If the list agrees that bugs are warranted, which severity should I
 use?  In my opinion it's a violation of the social contract and thus
 serious, but I've been recently told I should probably not use my
 own opinion as a justification for using the RC levels, so mayhaps
 wishlist would be better?

-- 
Tore Anderson