Bug#296723: ndiswrapper should go to contrib
This one time, at band camp, Adrian Bunk said: Package: ndiswrapper Version: 0.12+1.0rc2-1 Severity: serious Is there any way how ndiswrapper is currently useful without non-free software? If this is not the case, it has to go to contrib. This was just recently discussed, and I believe the consensus was that there are free drivers, so there is no problem. And frankly, even if there wasn't a single free driver out there, ndiswrapper's purpose is to provide an NDIS interface for the linux kernel. It does this whether or not there are drivers available, so it's a non-argument. See also bug #289065 Take care. Andres, I have not just closed this bug, as I wanted to give you a chance to look it over. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgpVfiH5COFoG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#296723: ndiswrapper should go to contrib
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:01:28AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Adrian Bunk said: Package: ndiswrapper Version: 0.12+1.0rc2-1 Severity: serious Is there any way how ndiswrapper is currently useful without non-free software? If this is not the case, it has to go to contrib. This was just recently discussed, and I believe the consensus was that there are free drivers, so there is no problem. And frankly, even if I didn't know about this and this makes my bug void. Where can I find DFSG-free drivers using ndiswrapper? there wasn't a single free driver out there, ndiswrapper's purpose is to provide an NDIS interface for the linux kernel. It does this whether or not there are drivers available, so it's a non-argument. ... Did Debian change it's mind recently? It used to be consensus on debian-legal that software that is currently unusable without non-free software has to go to contrib. And even on linux-kernel where people are much less dogmatic than on debian-legal (e.g. regarding firmware) it's usually agreed that interfaces like exported symbols that are not used by any free software but only by non-free software aren't OK. It was really a surprise for me if debian-legal would agree that interfaces that are currently only used by non-free software were suitable for Debian main. cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#296723: ndiswrapper should go to contrib
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 00:52 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:01:28AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Adrian Bunk said: Package: ndiswrapper Version: 0.12+1.0rc2-1 Severity: serious Is there any way how ndiswrapper is currently useful without non-free software? If this is not the case, it has to go to contrib. This was just recently discussed, and I believe the consensus was that there are free drivers, so there is no problem. And frankly, even if I didn't know about this and this makes my bug void. Where can I find DFSG-free drivers using ndiswrapper? I believe the ndiswrapper page itself has links to GPL'd drivers. there wasn't a single free driver out there, ndiswrapper's purpose is to provide an NDIS interface for the linux kernel. It does this whether or not there are drivers available, so it's a non-argument. ... Did Debian change it's mind recently? It used to be consensus on debian-legal that software that is currently unusable without non-free software has to go to contrib. It's not unusable without non-free software; it will happily load into the kernel and provide an ndis interface in the linux kernel. Please see the various other threads that were on this same topic. -- Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#296723: ndiswrapper should go to contrib
This one time, at band camp, Adrian Bunk said: On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:01:28AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: there wasn't a single free driver out there, ndiswrapper's purpose is to provide an NDIS interface for the linux kernel. It does this whether or not there are drivers available, so it's a non-argument. ... Did Debian change it's mind recently? The part above is my gut feeling, not the work of -legal. However, I feel that it is the only sane interpretation. If you write a free library that is not yet used by any programs, it is free. If the first program using your library is non-free, is your library suddenly non-free? That would be nonsense. However, this is only my opinion, and I am sure that the good people on -legal will happily tell me if they think I'm wrong. Since there are free drivers, however, the whole discussion is moot. Take care, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - pgp5IW52a3UGr.pgp Description: PGP signature
