On 3/1/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote: > > > The real question was "What is the difference for a package if it enables > > > the user to make use of his own software or his own hardware (whether free > > > or non-fee) ?" > > > > I don't think that's the real question in the context of ndiswrapper: > > But we do have old libraries whose sole purpose is to support old > proprietary applications linked against them. Those libs are DFSG-free, > and we distribute them in main so that our users can make use of their > apps without too much troubles. > > In a way, those libs are like ndiswrapper: they are useful only in > conjunction with some non-free stuff. But IMO it's not a reason to move > them in contrib ...
Ok, so you disagree with the idea that these should go in contrib. Let's grant that any "moving to contrib" will only happing in unstable/testing (and future stable) releases of debian. Do you see a problem with moving these to contrib? After all, everything in contrib is free software. Contrib is for free software that's only useful in conjunction with non-free software. Why do you think these other packages should not go in contrib? > > We've made promises in the social contract about what we will do > > in the context of making free software depend on other software. > > We haven't made any promises about making free software > > depend on hardware. > > True. But we're diverging here, the placement of ndiswrapper is more an > issue of policy than an issue of the social contract. Except, that policy is based on the social contract. > > > I think both packages enable the user to use "something he has" (whether > > > software or hardware) and that it doesn't make much sense to treat them > > > differently when both are DFSG free. > > > > What you said here does not make sense to me. I have never encountered > > a piece of hardware which satisfies the Debian Free Software Guidelines. > > "Both" refers to "both packages" (library and ndiswrapper). (and not > software and hardware) > > Here's the full parallel : > > The library is free, has no reverse depends in main, is thus only provided > for the user to compile and use software coming outside of Debian. We > can't assume anything about the software that the user will use. I disagree. We have to make assumptions about how software is normally used to define reasonable values for dpkg headers like Depends: I don't think it's at all reasonable to claim we can't make assumptions that we have to make. -- Raul