On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:38:53PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: > Practically, [contrib is] to avoid shipping things on our CDs that depend on stuff > that's not on our CDs. The reason for contrib isn't practicality at all, it's to distinguish free software that stands on its own and that depends on non-free software. That's why it's specifically talked about in the social contract, rather than only being discussed in policy. In any event, we've historically shipped contrib on our CDs; I've no idea whether we still do or not. > In this case, even in the absence of free NDIS > drivers, one could argue that the utility of having ndiswrapper in main > (especially if it is integrated into the install) outweighs any potential > drawbacks (and since the only drawback I can see is pissing off > zealots/fundamentalists, I'd be all for it.) One could argue many things, but since we're trying to make a free operating system, maybe we could resist that temptation. I assume, btw, you count me as one of the zealots/fundamentalists you're eager to piss off. > > > ndiswrapper doesn't depend (in a control file sense) on stuff in non-free, > > The "Depends:" field isn't really that relevant. > What is relevant is that ndiswrapper technically meets all requirements for > inclusion into main. Did I miss a solid argument refuting that assertion? I doubt it; I think you're just confusing "argument that I disagree with" with "argument that is unsound or irrational". Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature