[Kevin Mark] > if a piece of software was initially created to enable the use of > non-dfsg software with a dfsg system it is classified as 'ícontri', > but then someone creates dfsg-software to use this software, now its > classified as 'main'. Would this follow? You're trying to sneak in an unspoken premise: namely, that there is reason to believe ndiswrapper would ever be used with a free driver. I claim that this is ridiculous. As far as I've ever heard, free Linux drivers get written much faster than free Windows drivers. If, as I claim, it's exceedingly unlikely that ndiswrapper would ever be used to run free software, it is pure pedantry to say "but, but, but, you *could* use it for that". > But it also seems that the dfsg-use is not an absolute condition, it > has to be deem non-toy and useful which is not an easily agreed upon > idea. You seem to be arguing that the Social Contract doesn't say that our software must be of any use. What you're forgetting is that it also doesn't say we *should* ship useless things. Common sense would seem to indicate that we not do so. I don't see a meaningful distinction between "non-functional without non-free software" and "pointless without non-free software". Either way, that's the primary reason we have contrib.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature