On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 08:14:38PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> Then please work to revise [Removed false premise fallacy]
Last time your argument was that free NDIS drivers exist, so the situation is
analogous to wine. Nobody bothered to check, but it turns out that only one
free driver exists, and it's pretty pointless since it's a port of something we
already have.
Ok, quoting:
Social Contract:
"We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component."
Policy:
"2.2.2 The contrib section
[...]
Examples of packages which would be included in contrib are:
* [...]
* wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free
programs.
"
> Without something to work on, an assembler is just as useless as
> ndiswrapper. Which package(s) in main depend on nasm?
You can check that yourself. I guess a few dozens.
> Why not file a
> bug report against it, demanding that it be moved to contrib?
Because it's free software that processes asm input, and there is a significant
amount of useful, free i386 asm that makes nasm necessary ?
I'll ask again: Is the purpose of ndiswrapper running non-free drivers? If it
isn't, show me a free, non-toy, non-POC driver that would prove otherwise.
(That is a rhetorical question. Lack of any answer will probably help you
understand why contrib exists.)
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
