Re: "non-free" software included in contrib
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 08:45:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Apart from item (2), which I can't think of a major example of at present
> > (OOo is in main because they just don't build the Java parts, AIUI),
>
> Still in contrib, last I knew.
Whoops, it is too. I thought I'd left contrib and non-free off the sources
list on this box. Seems I didn't. Bad assumption on my part for that one.
> > The mechanism by which the non-free software will come to be on your system
> > (by hook or by crook, as it were) isn't a fundamental difference, IMO.
>
> The fundamental difference is that, in your first two cases above,
> you're actually installing some free software that has value of its own
> and presumably would be moved to main if the non-free software it
> depended on was reimplemented or otherwise freed; whereas in the third
> case, the free software is only useful *so long as* the non-free
> software in question is non-free.
Indeed. However, the point I was refuting was that installers shouldn't be
in contrib because they caused non-free software to appear on the user's
system. I was merely pointing out that there is no substantive difference
in that point between non-free dependencies and installers.
Personally, I'd love it if installers could go away because the software
became DFSG-free and so could be packaged directly. But, the unfortunate
reality is that it isn't at present, and installer packages are a reasonable
compromise between effectively telling our users "no, you can't manage that
software using dpkg" and compromising the DFSG.
I don't know if the presence of installers encourages or discourages the OSS
implementation of various pieces of non-free software. I'm leaning towards
the not case, though.
- Matt
Reply to: