[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes:

> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes:
>> > ndiswrapper is a piece of free software.  It does not need non-free
>> > tools to build, and it will execute as a standalone app without any
>> > drivers.  The fact that most people use it to enable non-free
>> > drivers to work is largely irrelevant - most people use wine and
>> > various other emulators for similar purposes.
>> >
>> > We have historically allowed all of these in main because we have
>> > defined the criteria for main in the SC and the DFSG.  Repeatedly
>> > over the past year or two, several people have been trying to
>> > incrementally rewrite the foundation documents by stealth through a
>> > slow process of arguing for new interpretations of what these
>> > documents meant.  I see this entire thread as yet one more attempt
>> > at this incremental revisionist work, and it is worrisome.
>> If you are arguing that people are acting in bad faith, then please
>> take the argument elsewhere.  I find far more worrisome this attitude
>> that other developers are lying.  I trust my fellow developers to be
>> honest with me; if you do not, please do not infect threads with such
>> suspicions.
> I said neither that anyone was lying, nor that they were acting in
> bad faith.  I think that they are working for something they believe
> in and that they are going about it poorly.  

You used the word "stealth" and "revisionist".  These are not
contributions to an attitude of openness and trust.

> We have a procedure for
> changing what the foundation documents say, and it is not by filing
> bugs or appealing to the tech ctte.  

The tech-ctte is there to address technical disputes.

> If people want the SC to say "We
> will never make the system require the use of a non-free component,
> and additionally we will not include in our main distribution software
> that is mostly used for running non-free code", I think they should just
> say so, rather than trying to advance that agenda in round about manner.

Once more, the SC does not address the main/contrib distinction at
all, as far as I can tell.  


Reply to: