On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:49:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:40:26AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > 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. > > Does the lack of a free driver which can be used with ndiswrapper mean > that it is impossible to use ndiswrapper with such a free driver, should > one eventually be written?
You can apply this argument to every single package in contrib. "If a free driver/datafile/whatever existed, it would be possible to run Foo without requiring non-free stuff, therefore it belongs to main" Is your point that contrib should therefore be empty and has no reason for existance? If not, please explain me the difference between ndiswrapper and all the other packages that belong to contrib and already are in. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
