[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 Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:57:21AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 07:04:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > 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.
> Don't assume things, it can cloud your judgement.  

If you don't want people to assume your insults are directed at them, don't
throw them around in the first place.

> Our goal is to make a free
> *and useful* operating system.  If you believe that keeping a piece of
> completely free software out of main that would allow our users to enable
> their wireless ethernet cards during installation is the right thing to do,
> even though the package is completely usable without any non-free code, that
> makes you sound pretty backwards to me.

The only instance when it's usable without any non-free code is when you're
better off using a native driver anyway. So either it's not useful to our users,
or it requires running non-free code. And that's what contrib's for.

> > > 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".
> So give a reference or Message-ID of (what you consider) a sound argument 
> that is not similar to "CIPE, and Windows driver developers who want to test
> on Linux don't count."

And that's what I mean -- there's nothing unsound about saying those cases don't
count; you just disagree with it.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: