On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:35:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > The only instance when it's usable without any non-free code is when > you're better off using a native driver anyway. The only instance where wine is serving a purpose without requiring the use of non-free code is when you're better off using native Linux software anyway. What's the difference? What is so insanely different between two ABI implementations that one ABI implementation can go in main, while the other must go to contrib? The fact that there is free software for one of them, while not for the other? No, doesn't hold; there is free software for both. The fact that there is useful free software for one of them, while not for the other? Shouldn't we let our users decide what's useful and what isn't? Otherwise, I'll declare that I don't find Windows software (_any_ Windows software, including free Windows software) useful, and you're back to square one. I can easily say that without lying: wine doesn't work on my laptop, and running it inside qemu is so insanely slow that it isn't useful. Honestly, I don't see any difference that you can use as an objective argument to allow one in main, but not the other. If running or building wine or ndiswrapper required the use of non-free software in all cases, _then_ you'd have a case. As it is, you don't. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature