Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > To address the original point, however: > > > I do believe that policy is correct in it's reasoning in this instance. By > > my understanding, packages go into contrib for one of three reasons: > > > 1) They strictly depend on non-free software; > > > 2) They build-depend on non-free software, but otherwise depend entirely on > > free software; or > > > 3) They install non-free software. > > > In each case, the actual contents of the package itself is DFSG-free. > > > Apart from item (2), which I can't think of a major example of at present > > (OOo is in main because they just don't build the Java parts, AIUI), > > Still in contrib, last I knew. > > > The mechanism by which the non-free software will come to be on your system > > (by hook or by crook, as it were) isn't a fundamental difference, IMO. > > The fundamental difference is that, in your first two cases above, > you're actually installing some free software that has value of its own > and presumably would be moved to main if the non-free software it > depended on was reimplemented or otherwise freed; whereas in the third > case, the free software is only useful *so long as* the non-free > software in question is non-free.
Just my 2 cents. I completely agree with Steve. If the only freeness of an installer is being able to use it as a staring point to make another installer, then that's pretty weak. It's sole purpose is to install something that isn't even free enough for `non-free', so why should it be listed in the freer than non-free contrib? Moving such packages to non-free would be more representative of their real state of freeness. Peter