Re: "non-free" software included in contrib
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> 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.
Exactly. What if a generalised DFSG-free software installer used a
separate config file to download, debianize (using dh_make templates),
then install the resulting package (most of it non-free because such a
scheme should not be necessary for free stuff)... imo, the installer
would go in main and the config/templates would go into contrib or
Should installers be forced into non-free just because they haven't
progressed to the point of being generalised yet?