Re: "non-free" software included in contrib
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
| > When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your
| > argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on
| > the probable or possible results of using the package, instead of
| > the code in the package itself, contrib would disappear and a case
| > could be made to place all editors in non-free because they can be
| > used to create non-free stuff.
| Ah, reductio ad absurdum. Such a wonderful means of demonstrating that you
| can't think up a decent argument, so you'll take something to it's illogical
| extreme to try and scare some people.
Don't attack reductio ad absurdum, attack the utter non-sequiturs in the
original post. If a package's postinst or main goal is to fetch some
non-free piece of software, that is by no means the "probable or
possible" results of using the package, it is the only useful result of
using the package as it is intended to be used. A piece of software
designed /only/ to fetch and install some non-free software is
significantly different to the case of e.g. an editor which can be used
to write non-free software or a generalised software installer (like
dpkg) which can potentially be used to install non-free software.