[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)

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".


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: