Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
On 22 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek verbalised:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:43:39PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:33:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:11:50PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
>>>> The reality is that we can't imagine all the uses our users might
>>>> have for this software,
>>> You don't have to imagine all the uses, just the realistic ones,
>>> which in this case is simply "running non-free Windows drivers for
>> What makes 'running free windows drivers for stuff' so much more
>> unrealistic than 'running free windows software for stuff'?
>> Especially seen as how no Windows software is packaged for Debian,
>> so that our users would have to do this themselves?
> I can, personally, point to Free Software that I've run under Wine
> on Debian. I can't do the same for free drivers running under
> ndiswrapper, and I don't see that anyone else in this discussion has
> done so either. That makes the second case a hypothetical, and IMHO
> it seems to be a contrived one.
To me it seems odd that the freedom of a work can be deterined
by whether or not there are thirs party works licensed appropriately
or not. So I am coming down on the side of treating emulatrs and
works that implement abswtract interfaces/protocols licensed freely
as free, in the manner of wine. ndiswrapper seems to fall close to
that, since it is not specific to any particular driver out there.
As of next Tuesday, C will be flushed in favor of COBOL. Please update
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C