Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net>]

Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> 
> > To address the original point, however:
> 
> > I do believe that policy is correct in it's reasoning in this instance.  By
> > my understanding, packages go into contrib for one of three reasons:
> 
> > 1) They strictly depend on non-free software;
> 
> > 2) They build-depend on non-free software, but otherwise depend entirely on
> > free software; or
> 
> > 3) They install non-free software.
> 
> > In each case, the actual contents of the package itself is DFSG-free.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> > 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.

Just my 2 cents.  I completely agree with Steve.  If the only freeness
of an installer is being able to use it as a staring point to make
another installer, then that's pretty weak.  It's sole purpose is to
install something that isn't even free enough for `non-free', so why
should it be listed in the freer than non-free contrib?

Moving such packages to non-free would be more representative of their
real state of freeness.

Peter