[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

[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

Reply to: