Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>
>> I do not see anywhere in the SC or the DFSG reference to the "main"
>> vs. "contrib" distinction. Perhaps I have missed it; can you please
>> point me to it?
>
> I think he addressed this in the first paragraph of that mail:
He said that ndiswrapper is a piece of free software, which is not in
doubt, but also not the point. Contrib only includes free software,
remember, so saying "but it *is* free" only proves that it belongs in
either main or contrib; it does not establish which.
The first paragraph of Stephen's mail said:
: 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.
Nothing here, it seems to me, is about the social contract or the
DFSG; there is no doubt that ndiswrapper is free software, but the
DFSG and the SC do not say anything like "all free software can go in
main", and indeed, the DFSG and the SC don't seem to say anything
about main or contrib anyway. But then, maybe I'm missing it: so
please, where in the text of the DFSG or the SC is reference to the
main/contrib distinction made?
> Stephan Gran writes:
>
>> This is a clear misunderstanding, AFAICT. Point 1 of the SC says that "We
>> will never make the system require the use of a non-free component", and
>> the DFSG define the difference between free and non-free.
>
> This part of SC#1 would be redundant if it were just a reference to
> the "main" versus "non-free" sections, since it already says "We
> promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
> according to these guidelines." Thus, it requires that the Debian
> system not include packages that meet Policy's definition of "contrib"
> but not "main".
Ah, I see. So pretend I have no non-free components at all.
What do I gain by having ndiswrapper around? What does it let me do
that I cannot do without it? Please be specific; don't speak in
hypothetical terms about software that might or might not exist.
Thomas
Reply to: