Debian Bug report logs - #353277
should be in contrib

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: should be in contrib

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:22:03 +0100

Package: ndiswrapper
Severity: serious

This package should be in contrib, not main.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-1-k7
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)

Message #10 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>

To: 353277-done@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: should be in contrib

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:13:16 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 11:22 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Package: ndiswrapper
> Severity: serious
> 
> This package should be in contrib, not main.


We've had this discussion.  We're not having it again.  Check the lists
(google for 'ndiswrapper', 'debian', and 'contrib').

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

To: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:00:28 +0100

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 07:49:10AM -0800, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 11:22 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Package: ndiswrapper
> > Severity: serious
> > 
> > This package should be in contrib, not main.
> 
> 
> We've had this discussion.  We're not having it again.  Check the lists
> (google for 'ndiswrapper', 'debian', and 'contrib').

I think you mean the discussion started by:

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00375.html

After reading it's still not clear to me why ndiswrapper isn't affected by
Policy 2.2.2.

First, I couldn't find any reference to a "GPLed NDIS driver" in ndiswrapper's
website, like Michael Poole asserts:

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00381.html

I would tend to agree that if there's at least one non-POC free driver, without
any free, native equivalent, then ndiswrapper is not targetted exclussively at
using non-free software.

However, it seems Goswin has a point, which he didn't explain.  He sent a
message saying that in IRC they reached a different conclussion, and nobody
replied to him:

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00963.html

I'm adding CC to Michael, Goswin and debian-devel.

-- 
Robert Millan

Message #25 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>

To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:40:10 -0500

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:00 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
[...]
> 
> First, I couldn't find any reference to a "GPLed NDIS driver" in ndiswrapper's
> website, like Michael Poole asserts:
> 
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00381.html
> 

I assume he was talking about the CIPE driver; it's linked right from
the main ndiswrapper page.

Message #30 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

To: Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:48:29 +0100

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 12:40:10PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:00 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> [...]
> > 
> > First, I couldn't find any reference to a "GPLed NDIS driver" in ndiswrapper's
> > website, like Michael Poole asserts:
> > 
> >   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00381.html
> > 
> 
> I assume he was talking about the CIPE driver; it's linked right from
> the main ndiswrapper page.

I see.  From http://cipe-win32.sourceforge.net/ :

  "CIPE-Win32 is a port of Olaf Titz's CIPE package from Linux to Windows NT."

I think this is the cipe-source package in debian.  If this driver is already
available, there's no much point in using it via ndiswrapper.

Is there any other free ndis driver?

-- 
Robert Millan

Message #35 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>

To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:14:23 -0500

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 23:48 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 12:40:10PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:00 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > [...]
> > > 
> > > First, I couldn't find any reference to a "GPLed NDIS driver" in ndiswrapper's
> > > website, like Michael Poole asserts:
> > > 
> > >   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00381.html
> > > 
> > 
> > I assume he was talking about the CIPE driver; it's linked right from
> > the main ndiswrapper page.
> 
> I see.  From http://cipe-win32.sourceforge.net/ :
> 
>   "CIPE-Win32 is a port of Olaf Titz's CIPE package from Linux to Windows NT."
> 
> I think this is the cipe-source package in debian.  If this driver is already
> available, there's no much point in using it via ndiswrapper.
> 
> Is there any other free ndis driver?
> 

I have no idea; I don't particularly care.  I don't see the point of
this whole discussion.

Message #40 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Cc: Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:21:24 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Feb 17, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote:

> I see.  From http://cipe-win32.sourceforge.net/ :
> 
>   "CIPE-Win32 is a port of Olaf Titz's CIPE package from Linux to Windows NT."
> 
> I think this is the cipe-source package in debian.  If this driver is already
> available, there's no much point in using it via ndiswrapper.
This does not make ndiswrapper more dependent on non-free software, so
I can't see why it should be relevant.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #45 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>

To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: 17 Feb 2006 20:14:38 -0500

Robert Millan writes:

> I see.  From http://cipe-win32.sourceforge.net/ :
> 
>   "CIPE-Win32 is a port of Olaf Titz's CIPE package from Linux to Windows NT."
> 
> I think this is the cipe-source package in debian.  If this driver is already
> available, there's no much point in using it via ndiswrapper.

Then please work to revise the DFSG or policy to exclude packages like
ndiswrapper from main.  As things stand, ndiswrapper and its kin
qualify.  Nothing requires software in main to have a point or be the
easiest way to achieve a goal.

Without something to work on, an assembler is just as useless as
ndiswrapper.  Which package(s) in main depend on nasm?  Why not file a
bug report against it, demanding that it be moved to contrib?  (That
is a rhetorical question.  Your answer will probably help you
understand why I said the main reason to push against ndiswrapper is a
grudge.)

Michael Poole

Message #50 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

To: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:40:26 +0100

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

Message #55 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Cc: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:49:48 +0100

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?

If there is a brand shiny new file format of which the spec has been
fully disclosed and published in an RFC, though no free editors exist
(yet) for the format, does that make the format non-free?

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Message #60 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

To: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

Cc: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:42:38 +0100

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

Message #65 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>

To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: 18 Feb 2006 08:46:53 -0500

Robert Millan writes:

> Policy:
> 
> "2.2.2 The contrib section
> 
> [...]
> Examples of packages which would be included in contrib are:
> 

Here's the part that you left out:

 * free packages which require contrib, non-free packages or packages
   which are not in our archive at all for compilation or execution,
   and

>     *      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 ?

But nasm requires such assembly for useful execution!  This is the
same situation as ndiswrapper.  Neither are very useful unless you use
them with software that is not in main.  They both *compile* and
*execute* without extra software, which is all that policy requires.

You are the one who insists that the execution must be "free, non-toy,
non-POC", and that is why I said that if you want to change the state
of things, you should revise the DFSG or policy.

Michael Poole

Message #70 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:05:20 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 08:46:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> But nasm requires such assembly for useful execution!  

Dude, you're on crack. First, there's apparently free software in
main that you can compile with nasm to your heart's content, namely
crystalspace, drip, e3, effectv, extipl, flac, hermes1, libgpeg-mmx,
libopenspc, mknbi, motion, pearpc, psemu-video-x11, sbm, scummvm,
syslinux, visualboyadvance, vlc, xmms-openspc, zinf, and zsnes.

But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't a driver compiler, it's a wrapper to
allow existing drivers to run on Linux. If there aren't any free ones,
or the free ones are useless toys, then it belongs in contrib because
its purpose is to allow you to run non-free software.

Cheers,
aj

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #75 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: 18 Feb 2006 09:59:07 -0500

Anthony Towns writes:

> But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
> assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't a driver compiler, it's a wrapper to
> allow existing drivers to run on Linux.

This apparently means that you object to translation at the binary
level but not translation at the source level.  I guess that's
reasonable in a general sense, it's just not a distinction that policy
or the DFSG makes.

Michael Poole

Message #80 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:25:59 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 09:59 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> Anthony Towns writes:
> 
> > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> > rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
> > assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't a driver compiler, it's a wrapper to
> > allow existing drivers to run on Linux.
> 
> This apparently means that you object to translation at the binary
> level but not translation at the source level.  I guess that's
> reasonable in a general sense, it's just not a distinction that policy
> or the DFSG makes.

Come on, please stop arguing with random, unsuited comparisons, and use
common sense : what's the purpose of ndiswrapper without non-free
drivers to use it on? We've always put things of the like in contrib,
and if we stop doing it, we can remove contrib entirely.

Why are you trying so hard to keep it in main? Putting it in contrib
doesn't mean we'd stop supporting it. If this is about availability "by
default", you'd better work on d-i so that it can load drivers from
contrib and non-free if provided, instead of trying to put each and
every driver with a firmware or another non-free bit in main.
-- 
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #85 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>

To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Cc: Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:04:54 +0100

Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 12:40:10PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:00 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>> [...]
>> > 
>> > First, I couldn't find any reference to a "GPLed NDIS driver" in ndiswrapper's
>> > website, like Michael Poole asserts:
>> > 
>> >   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00381.html
>> > 
>> 
>> I assume he was talking about the CIPE driver; it's linked right from
>> the main ndiswrapper page.
>
> I see.  From http://cipe-win32.sourceforge.net/ :
>
>   "CIPE-Win32 is a port of Olaf Titz's CIPE package from Linux to Windows NT."
>
> I think this is the cipe-source package in debian.  If this driver is already
> available, there's no much point in using it via ndiswrapper.
>
> Is there any other free ndis driver?

The availability to do this is enough even if there are other
(possibly better) ways to do the same. One free driver _in_ Debian and
the package should stay in main.

But does the cipe-source build or ship the windows driver for use with
ndiswraper? I doubt that.

Which means you need some software (even if it is free) from outside
Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.

MfG
        Goswin

Message #90 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:32:23 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:59:07AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> > rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
> > assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't a driver compiler, it's a wrapper to
> > allow existing drivers to run on Linux.
> This apparently means that you object to translation at the binary
> level but not translation at the source level.  I guess that's
> reasonable in a general sense, it's just not a distinction that policy
> or the DFSG makes.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Which isn't surprising,
considering you're apparently not a developer, maintainer, applicant or
any other sort of regular contributor to Debian. In future, if you've
got questions, please ask, rather than degrading the quality of the lists
by doing the Usenet troll thing of posting authoritative statements that
are complete wrong in order to get other people to correct you.

Cheers,
aj

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #95 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:34:52 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > I see.  From http://cipe-win32.sourceforge.net/ :
> >   "CIPE-Win32 is a port of Olaf Titz's CIPE package from Linux to Windows NT."
> > I think this is the cipe-source package in debian.  If this driver is already
> > available, there's no much point in using it via ndiswrapper.
> > Is there any other free ndis driver?
> The availability to do this is enough even if there are other
> (possibly better) ways to do the same. One free driver _in_ Debian and
> the package should stay in main.

Can the non developers on this list please stop posting as though they're
in a position to make global policy decisions for Debian?

> But does the cipe-source build or ship the windows driver for use with
> ndiswraper? I doubt that.

Even if it does, it shouldn't do so if there's no point to running the
driver through ndiswrapper. Stuff in contrib is free software, that
happens to be only useful in making non-free software work. There's no
shame in that; it just means RMS won't bother running it.

Cheers,
aj

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #100 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>

Cc: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>, Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:36:37 +0100

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
> The availability to do this is enough even if there are other
> (possibly better) ways to do the same. One free driver _in_ Debian and
> the package should stay in main.
> 
> But does the cipe-source build or ship the windows driver for use with
> ndiswraper? I doubt that.
> 
> Which means you need some software (even if it is free) from outside
> Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.

Are there any free MSWord files in main ? No ? Then please move
antiword and similar tools to contrib.

Mike

Message #105 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: 18 Feb 2006 11:56:18 -0500

Anthony Towns writes:

> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:59:07AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> > > rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
> > > assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't a driver compiler, it's a wrapper to
> > > allow existing drivers to run on Linux.
> > This apparently means that you object to translation at the binary
> > level but not translation at the source level.  I guess that's
> > reasonable in a general sense, it's just not a distinction that policy
> > or the DFSG makes.
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about. Which isn't surprising,
> considering you're apparently not a developer, maintainer, applicant or
> any other sort of regular contributor to Debian. In future, if you've
> got questions, please ask, rather than degrading the quality of the lists
> by doing the Usenet troll thing of posting authoritative statements that
> are complete wrong in order to get other people to correct you.

I was dragged into this conversation because someone cited, in a
duplicate bug report, an email that I wrote more than a year ago.
Please do not confuse that with "doing the Usenet troll thing".  But
if you want to make Debian even more hostile to people on the
"outside", continue along your current path.

Michael Poole

Message #110 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>, Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:17:11 +0000

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
> > The availability to do this is enough even if there are other
> > (possibly better) ways to do the same. One free driver _in_ Debian and
> > the package should stay in main.
> > 
> > But does the cipe-source build or ship the windows driver for use with
> > ndiswraper? I doubt that.
> > 
> > Which means you need some software (even if it is free) from outside
> > Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.
> 
> Are there any free MSWord files in main ? No ? Then please move
> antiword and similar tools to contrib.

*points at abiword and openoffice.org*

-- 
Brett Parker

Message #115 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>

To: Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk>

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>, Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: 18 Feb 2006 12:21:33 -0500

Brett Parker writes:

> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
> > > The availability to do this is enough even if there are other
> > > (possibly better) ways to do the same. One free driver _in_ Debian and
> > > the package should stay in main.
> > > 
> > > But does the cipe-source build or ship the windows driver for use with
> > > ndiswraper? I doubt that.
> > > 
> > > Which means you need some software (even if it is free) from outside
> > > Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.
> > 
> > Are there any free MSWord files in main ? No ? Then please move
> > antiword and similar tools to contrib.
> 
> *points at abiword and openoffice.org*

Those are (arguably) different because they let users create software
in those formats, instead of just processing existing software.

Michael Poole

Message #120 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:51:50 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 17:36 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > Which means you need some software (even if it is free) from outside
> > Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.
> 
> Are there any free MSWord files in main ? No ? Then please move
> antiword and similar tools to contrib.

If you want to follow that (totally unsuited) line of reasoning, I'm
sure we can find free MSWord files in main. I've already encountered
some in documentation directories of some sources.
-- 
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #125 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

To: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:11:32 +0100

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
> > The availability to do this is enough even if there are other
> > (possibly better) ways to do the same. One free driver _in_ Debian and
> > the package should stay in main.
> > 
> > But does the cipe-source build or ship the windows driver for use with
> > ndiswraper? I doubt that.
> > 
> > Which means you need some software (even if it is free) from outside
> > Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.
> 
> Are there any free MSWord files in main ? No ? Then please move
> antiword and similar tools to contrib.

You're turning this into non-sense.  An NDIS wrapper is OBVIOUSLY for the
exclussive purpose of using non-free Windows drivers.  It is so obvious
because nobody has written [1] free GPLed NDIS drivers.  EVER.  It has nothing
to do with Wine and MSWord [2].

So, stop throwing unrelated points to this matter.  Just fix the bug.  Move this
to contrib, with all the other warez wrappers.

[1] Written, not ported.  I know someone ported that CIPE thing from Linux to
Windows, but the sole idea of porting something to Windows in order to emulate
it from Linux makes me laugh.

-- 
Robert Millan

Message #130 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>

To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Cc: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:22:35 +0100

On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:11:32AM +0100, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
> > > The availability to do this is enough even if there are other
> > > (possibly better) ways to do the same. One free driver _in_ Debian and
> > > the package should stay in main.
> > > 
> > > But does the cipe-source build or ship the windows driver for use with
> > > ndiswraper? I doubt that.
> > > 
> > > Which means you need some software (even if it is free) from outside
> > > Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.
> > 
> > Are there any free MSWord files in main ? No ? Then please move
> > antiword and similar tools to contrib.
> 
> You're turning this into non-sense.  An NDIS wrapper is OBVIOUSLY for the
> exclussive purpose of using non-free Windows drivers.  It is so obvious
> because nobody has written [1] free GPLed NDIS drivers.  EVER.  It has nothing
> to do with Wine and MSWord [2].
> 
> So, stop throwing unrelated points to this matter.  Just fix the bug.  Move this
> to contrib, with all the other warez wrappers.

Some people obviously think that to qualify for main, there has to be
stuff in main that can be used with the program. Which I think is not
the point at all. If there were no MSWord file in main (which is not the
case, cf. my previous mail today), would we ask for antiword and friends
to be moved into contrib ?
The NDIS wrapper issue has nothing to do with the fact that there is no
NDIS driver in main.

Mike

Message #135 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:27:12 +0100

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:17:11PM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
> > > The availability to do this is enough even if there are other
> > > (possibly better) ways to do the same. One free driver _in_ Debian and
> > > the package should stay in main.
> > > 
> > > But does the cipe-source build or ship the windows driver for use with
> > > ndiswraper? I doubt that.
> > > 
> > > Which means you need some software (even if it is free) from outside
> > > Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.
> > 
> > Are there any free MSWord files in main ? No ? Then please move
> > antiword and similar tools to contrib.
> 
> *points at abiword and openoffice.org*

$ apt-file search ".doc" | grep "\.doc\(\|\.gz\)" | wc -l

Nevertheless, if you think abiword and openoffice.org should be moved then go
for it.  Just don't use them as excuse to turn warez wrappers into "generic"
driver interfaces.

-- 
Robert Millan

Message #140 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:34:22 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Feb 19, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote:

> Nevertheless, if you think abiword and openoffice.org should be moved then go
> for it.  Just don't use them as excuse to turn warez wrappers into "generic"
> driver interfaces.
No excuses are needed, the definition of contrib is enough and
ndiswrapper has been uploaded to main using the same criteria which have
been used in the past for emulators. Stop rewriting history.
Please also stop insulting ndiswrapper users and developers by calling
it a "warez wrapper".

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #145 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>

To: 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:25:18 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 11:22 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > You're turning this into non-sense.  An NDIS wrapper is OBVIOUSLY for the
> > exclussive purpose of using non-free Windows drivers.  It is so obvious
> > because nobody has written [1] free GPLed NDIS drivers.  EVER.  It has nothing
> > to do with Wine and MSWord [2].
> > 
> > So, stop throwing unrelated points to this matter.  Just fix the bug.  Move this
> > to contrib, with all the other warez wrappers.
> 
> Some people obviously think that to qualify for main, there has to be
> stuff in main that can be used with the program. 

No. It's a question of *purpose*.

> Which I think is not
> the point at all. If there were no MSWord file in main (which is not the
> case, cf. my previous mail today), would we ask for antiword and friends
> to be moved into contrib ?

No. Antiword is a file viewer, not a driver layer.

> The NDIS wrapper issue has nothing to do with the fact that there is no
> NDIS driver in main.

Indeed. It has with the fact there is no reasonable use of ndiswrapper
that doesn't imply installing (and running) non-free software on the
host machine. The key here is "reasonable". This is a practical case,
not something to build up theories on fantasmatic uses that don't have
any kind of possible application.
-- 
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #150 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:04:43 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Feb 19, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:

> Indeed. It has with the fact there is no reasonable use of ndiswrapper
> that doesn't imply installing (and running) non-free software on the
> host machine. The key here is "reasonable". This is a practical case,
> not something to build up theories on fantasmatic uses that don't have
> any kind of possible application.
This is an interesting argument, but which has no fundament in the SC
and policy and so is not relevant for the purpose of determining if a
package is acceptable for main.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #155 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>

To: 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:45:24 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 11:34 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 19, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote:
> 
> > Nevertheless, if you think abiword and openoffice.org should be moved then go
> > for it.  Just don't use them as excuse to turn warez wrappers into "generic"
> > driver interfaces.
> No excuses are needed, the definition of contrib is enough and
> ndiswrapper has been uploaded to main using the same criteria which have
> been used in the past for emulators. Stop rewriting history.
> Please also stop insulting ndiswrapper users and developers by calling
> it a "warez wrapper".
> 

And for fuck's sake, stop filling up my inbox w/ this crap.  I'm not
doing a thing unless either a) you people come to a consensus on the
issue (which you have not in the past threads, and probably never will),
or b) a governing body like the ctte tells me that it should be in
contrib.  Otherwise, it's staying right where it is.  Honestly, I could
care less whether it's in contrib or main, but it was a decision that
was made long ago, and I see no reason to make the change.

Robert, don't you have better things to do w/ your time?  Go fix cdbs
bugs or something.  David Nusinow requested help w/ xorg 7.0 packaging;
maybe you should help him out.  I'm sick and tired of these pointless
discussions.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #160 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>

To: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>

Cc: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>, Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:42:55 +0100

Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:

> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
>> The availability to do this is enough even if there are other
>> (possibly better) ways to do the same. One free driver _in_ Debian and
>> the package should stay in main.
>> 
>> But does the cipe-source build or ship the windows driver for use with
>> ndiswraper? I doubt that.
>> 
>> Which means you need some software (even if it is free) from outside
>> Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.
>
> Are there any free MSWord files in main ? No ? Then please move
> antiword and similar tools to contrib.
>
> Mike

The difference is that antiword is a tool for the user. The user will
have doc files to use with antiword, e.g. send by mail. The antiword
program on its own provides the user with the ability to view his/her
word files. It does not depend on the existance of such a file on the
system to provide that service.

But users don't get drivers send to them for use with ndiswraper. That
is strictly a system/kernel thing. A driver MUST be provided for
ndiswraper to create a network interface for use in the system. As
such I feel that its need for a driver constitutes a dependency.

But that is just me. Do what you want as long as ndiswraper stays out
of non-free.

MfG
        Goswin

Message #165 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be>

To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Cc: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 03:14:40 +0100

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:42:38PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 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.  

No, that's not true.

ndiswrapper is an environment for running software, much in the same way
as wine is an environment for running software. Heck, even much in the
same way that a PC is an environment for running software.

Wine is something that was written to make the use of Windows binary
software possible on Linux. The fact that you'd do it this way, rather
than recompiling the application for Linux and running such a recompiled
version instead is a serious indication that the software you're trying
to run is, most likely, not a free application. But does that mean that
wine requires the use of non-free software?

I say it does not. Because there is a major difference between an
application that requires the use of a library that is non-free, and a
library that allows or facilitates the use of non-free software. Wine
and ndiswrapper are in the latter category; a GPL'ed application which
is written in Java that requires the use of a non-free API is not, and
is in a completely different ballpark.

>   "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?

No.

Please don't put words in my mouth if what I said can't be used to make
your point.

It is already possible to use ndiswrapper without having any non-free
software installed. Granted, it doesn't do much useful that way, but a)
neither the DFSG nor the SC say anything about usefulness, and b) if a
free library package exists in main which no other free package uses it,
we don't move the free library package to contrib either.

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Message #170 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Bernhard R. Link" <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>

To: "Marco d'Itri" <md@Linux.IT>

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:12:30 +0100

* Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> [060219 11:34]:
> > Nevertheless, if you think abiword and openoffice.org should be moved then go
> > for it.  Just don't use them as excuse to turn warez wrappers into "generic"
> > driver interfaces.
> No excuses are needed, the definition of contrib is enough and
> ndiswrapper has been uploaded to main using the same criteria which have
> been used in the past for emulators. Stop rewriting history.
> Please also stop insulting ndiswrapper users and developers by calling
> it a "warez wrapper".

emulators, game engines and other stuff not usefull without something to
act on has always been placed in contrib when there was no free stuff available 
for them.  History has always been: "Write something free for it, then
it is main; if you don't then it is obviously at most contrib".

  Bernhard R. Link

Message #175 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

To: Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353278@bugs.debian.org, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:36:13 +0100

reopen 353278
reassign 353278 tech-ctte
reopen 353277
reassign 353277 tech-ctte
merge 353278 353277
thanks

Hi,

I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved to contrib.

My reasons are:

  - The sole purpose of these packages is allowing the use of non-free Windows
  drivers.

  - There are no free Windows drivers for this interface, except a port of a
  Linux driver to Windows (cipe), which is only used on native Windows
  platform (since it is pointless to emulate it from Linux, where the original
  cipe is already available).

The maintainer refuses to move it unless you rule a formal decision or a
consensus is reached.  I think the latter is impossible, and therefore I ask you
to consider the issue.

Thank you.

On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:45:24PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 11:34 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Feb 19, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Nevertheless, if you think abiword and openoffice.org should be moved then go
> > > for it.  Just don't use them as excuse to turn warez wrappers into "generic"
> > > driver interfaces.
> > No excuses are needed, the definition of contrib is enough and
> > ndiswrapper has been uploaded to main using the same criteria which have
> > been used in the past for emulators. Stop rewriting history.
> > Please also stop insulting ndiswrapper users and developers by calling
> > it a "warez wrapper".
> > 
> 
> And for fuck's sake, stop filling up my inbox w/ this crap.  I'm not
> doing a thing unless either a) you people come to a consensus on the
> issue (which you have not in the past threads, and probably never will),
> or b) a governing body like the ctte tells me that it should be in
> contrib.  Otherwise, it's staying right where it is.  Honestly, I could
> care less whether it's in contrib or main, but it was a decision that
> was made long ago, and I see no reason to make the change.

-- 
Robert Millan

Message #180 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:12:04 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Feb 20, "Bernhard R. Link" <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:

> emulators, game engines and other stuff not usefull without something to
> act on has always been placed in contrib when there was no free stuff available 
> for them.  History has always been: "Write something free for it, then
> it is main; if you don't then it is obviously at most contrib".
Yes (even if it was a trivial application), and this has been the case
for ndiswrapper too.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #191 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Raul Miller" <moth.debian@gmail.com>

To: "Robert Millan" <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Cc: "Andres Salomon" <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353278@bugs.debian.org, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:16:30 -0500

On 2/20/06, Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote:
> I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved to contrib.

This proposal is clear enough.

> My reasons are:
>
>   - The sole purpose of these packages is allowing the use of non-free Windows
>   drivers.
>
>   - There are no free Windows drivers for this interface, except a port of a
>   Linux driver to Windows (cipe), which is only used on native Windows
>   platform (since it is pointless to emulate it from Linux, where the original
>   cipe is already available).

I'm not sure I agree with this.

When I look at the list of drivers that ndiswrapper supports
http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/index.php/List
I see several that seem to be open source.

You've asserted that none of these drivers satisfy the DFSG,
but I think we would need more than an assertion on this issue.

As a specific counter example, consider
http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
which is a project porting a windows driver to linux.  This port
appears to be possible because the windows driver was made
available under a free license.

--
Raul

Message #196 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>

Cc: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:16:05 +0100

On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:11:32AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:36:37PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:04:54PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow
> > > The availability to do this is enough even if there are other
> > > (possibly better) ways to do the same. One free driver _in_ Debian and
> > > the package should stay in main.
> > > 
> > > But does the cipe-source build or ship the windows driver for use with
> > > ndiswraper? I doubt that.
> > > 
> > > Which means you need some software (even if it is free) from outside
> > > Debian for ndiswraper. That makes it contrib imho.
> > 
> > Are there any free MSWord files in main ? No ? Then please move
> > antiword and similar tools to contrib.
> 
> You're turning this into non-sense.  An NDIS wrapper is OBVIOUSLY for the
> exclussive purpose of using non-free Windows drivers.  It is so obvious
> because nobody has written [1] free GPLed NDIS drivers.  EVER.  It has nothing
> to do with Wine and MSWord [2].
> 
> So, stop throwing unrelated points to this matter.  Just fix the bug.  Move this
> to contrib, with all the other warez wrappers.
> 
> [1] Written, not ported.  I know someone ported that CIPE thing from Linux to
> Windows, but the sole idea of porting something to Windows in order to emulate
> it from Linux makes me laugh.

The sole idea to run Internet Explorer under Wine on Linux makes _me_
laugh. But I've seen people do it. And they were not amused by my
laughing.

The fact that there is at least one GPL driver for ndiswrapper means
that it is possible to use ndiswrapper for useful purposes without
non-free software. And since cipe is not part of the kernel yet, that
might be a good idea anyway if the native driver doesn't work with the
kernel which you're using for some reason while ndiswrapper does.
Which is not _that_ strange, I've seen it often enough with
out-of-(vanilla)-kernel modules.

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Message #201 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353278@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:40:06 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:36:13PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved to contrib.

ndiswrapper is a program to allow users to load Windows drivers for their
hardware and use them on Linux. The drivers are executed on the main CPU;
there are no free drivers that ndiswrapper is useful for, apart from a
single example driver that is a port of a driver already in the kernel.

We currently allow both emulators, that play non-free ROMs, and clients
for network protocols for which there is no non-free server into main.

ndiswrapper was accepted into main in November 2004.

AFAICS, this would come under the "overrule a developer (3:1 majority)"
power.

> The maintainer refuses to move it unless you rule a formal decision or a
> consensus is reached.  I think the latter is impossible, and therefore I ask you
> to consider the issue.

While I would personally rather see the "contrib" demarkation cover
this, emulators, and clients for propietary protocols, I'm disinclined
to override both the maintainer and the ftpmaster that accepted it,
particularly on this single issue rather than as a global policy change
for those issues. I expect I'll either abstain or vote against.

Cheers,
aj

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #206 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Raul Miller" <moth.debian@gmail.com>

To: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:59:56 -0500

On 2/20/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> AFAICS, this would come under the "overrule a developer (3:1 majority)"
> power.

That's a good point.

While there are technical issues here (such as: "what software does ndiswrapper
depend on?"), they are not the deciding issues.   The core issues are more like
"how will most people use ndiswrapper"?

Focusing on the technical aspects is probably the wrong thing to do in
this case.

--
Raul

Message #211 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353278@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:38:52 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:40:06AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:36:13PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved to contrib.

> ndiswrapper is a program to allow users to load Windows drivers for their
> hardware and use them on Linux. The drivers are executed on the main CPU;
> there are no free drivers that ndiswrapper is useful for, apart from a
> single example driver that is a port of a driver already in the kernel.

> We currently allow both emulators, that play non-free ROMs, and clients
> for network protocols for which there is no non-free server into main.

> ndiswrapper was accepted into main in November 2004.

> AFAICS, this would come under the "overrule a developer (3:1 majority)"
> power.

Yes, this is not a request from Andres that we make a decision on his
behalf, therefore the Technical Committee would be acting to override the
maintainer under 6.1.4 with a 3:1 majority.

> > The maintainer refuses to move it unless you rule a formal decision or a
> > consensus is reached.  I think the latter is impossible, and therefore I ask you
> > to consider the issue.

> While I would personally rather see the "contrib" demarkation cover
> this, emulators, and clients for propietary protocols, I'm disinclined
> to override both the maintainer and the ftpmaster that accepted it,
> particularly on this single issue rather than as a global policy change
> for those issues. I expect I'll either abstain or vote against.

I suspect I disagree with Anthony on where exactly the line should be drawn,
but it does seem to me that the arguments used to justify ndiswrapper's
presence in main are rather contrived.  Nobody is going to want to run
drivers under ndiswrapper in a production environment if there is a suitable
free equivalent available for Linux; the only practical applications I see
here are using non-free Windows drivers under Linux for
otherwise-unsupported hardware, and using ndiswrapper as a tool for
preliminary testing of drivers being written for Windows in an environment
that doesn't require booting Windows.  The former is what I use it for, and
what every user I know uses it for, and doesn't justify a claim that
ndiswrapper does not depend on non-free software.  The latter, IMHO, would
be grounds for shipping the software in main, but AFAIK this is purely a
hypothetical at this point.

Either way, I do agree with Anthony that one-off overrides of maintainers
don't seem like the best way for us to be spending our time.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #216 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Cc: Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353278@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:04:06 -0600

On 21 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek verbalised:

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:40:06AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:36:13PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>>> I requested that ndiswrapper and ndiswrapper-modules-i386 be moved
>>> to contrib.
>> While I would personally rather see the "contrib" demarkation cover
>> this, emulators, and clients for propietary protocols, I'm
>> disinclined to override both the maintainer and the ftpmaster that
>> accepted it, particularly on this single issue rather than as a
>> global policy change for those issues. I expect I'll either abstain
>> or vote against.
>
> I suspect I disagree with Anthony on where exactly the line should
> be drawn, but it does seem to me that the arguments used to justify
> ndiswrapper's presence in main are rather contrived.  Nobody is
> going to want to run drivers under ndiswrapper in a production
> environment if there is a suitable free equivalent available for
> Linux; the only practical applications I see here are using non-free
> Windows drivers under Linux for otherwise-unsupported hardware, and
> using ndiswrapper as a tool for preliminary testing of drivers being
> written for Windows in an environment that doesn't require booting
> Windows.  The former is what I use it for, and what every user I
> know uses it for, and doesn't justify a claim that ndiswrapper does
> not depend on non-free software.  The latter, IMHO, would be grounds
> for shipping the software in main, but AFAIK this is purely a
> hypothetical at this point.

        I think Raul pointed out that there are free windows only
 drivers seen in the wilds out there, in which case  ndiswrapper seems
 to represent an implementation of a protocol that allows windows only
 code to work with the Linux kernel. Whether or not such free code has
 been ported to Linux natively should be immaterial, I would draw the
 line at whether  ndiswrapper falls in the category that "installers"
 do, or in the category that "wine" does.

        I think it tends to fall in the latter, since it does not seem
 to be specific to any particular piece of code or driver; and there
 is nothing that precludes a windows only piece of code that works
 with  ndiswrapper to be licensed freely.


> Either way, I do agree with Anthony that one-off overrides of
> maintainers don't seem like the best way for us to be spending our
> time.

        While I agree with you both, it is because I thinik that
 ndiswrapper actually belongs in main.

        manoj
-- 
If you don't care where you are, then you ain't lost.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Message #221 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Margarita Manterola" <margamanterola@gmail.com>

To: moth@debian.org

Cc: "Robert Millan" <rmh@aybabtu.com>, "Andres Salomon" <dilinger@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 353278@bugs.debian.org, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:11:20 -0300

On 2/20/06, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a specific counter example, consider
> http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> which is a project porting a windows driver to linux.  This port
> appears to be possible because the windows driver was made
> available under a free license.

With this particular driver, I think you are making a mistake.  rt2x00
is available as an independent driver (i.e. without ndiswrapper).

As can be read in the project's history [1], the open-source project
started because Ralink decided to release the Linux drivers under a
free license.  There's no mention on the page of a Windows driver.

Also, rt2x00 is already packaged in Debian as rt2400-source and rt2500-source.

[1]: http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/History

--
Love,
Marga

Message #226 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Raul Miller" <moth.debian@gmail.com>

To: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:31:13 -0500

On 2/21/06, Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/06, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As a specific counter example, consider
> > http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> > which is a project porting a windows driver to linux.  This port
> > appears to be possible because the windows driver was made
> > available under a free license.
>
> With this particular driver, I think you are making a mistake.  rt2x00
> is available as an independent driver (i.e. without ndiswrapper).

What is my mistake?

It looks to me as if the sequence of events was:

1 "open source" windows driver available (can be used with ndiswrapper)
2 someone ports windows driver to linux
3 linux driver available

These events are sequential, and event 3 does not erase event 1.

> As can be read in the project's history [1], the open-source project
> started because Ralink decided to release the Linux drivers under a
> free license.  There's no mention on the page of a Windows driver.

So the mention is not on that particular page, and is on a different
page.  Why is this a problem?

Note: I'm not saying there is no problem.

But if we're going to change our rules for "acceptable in main" from
"FOO is allowed in main if FOO is free and everything FOO requires
for installation is free" to "FOO is allowed in main if the typical use of
FOO can does not involve any non-free software" then we have a
much bigger issue than ndiswrapper.

And if we're going to tackle this issue properly, we need to define
the problems clearly before we can even begin to come up with a
decent solution.

For example, while we might want to define a "six degrees of separation
free" debian subset, but before we could do that we'd need to have
a good idea of what goes in that subset, how people that use it can be
sure that that's what they're getting, what we're going to do about
people who have come to rely on other software, etc. etc.

--
Raul

Message #231 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>

To: moth@debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:57:44 +0000

Raul Miller writes ("Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> It looks to me as if the sequence of events was:
> 
> 1 "open source" windows driver available (can be used with ndiswrapper)
> 2 someone ports windows driver to linux
> 3 linux driver available
> 
> These events are sequential, and event 3 does not erase event 1.

Was the open source windows driver ever available as a Debian
package ?  It seems clear to me that anything which requires you to
install non-Debian stuff on your machine belongs in contrib, even if
the reason for the dependency being non-Debian is not non-freeness.

Ian.

Message #236 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Raul Miller" <moth.debian@gmail.com>

To: "Ian Jackson" <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:16:03 -0500

On 2/21/06, Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Raul Miller writes ("Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> > It looks to me as if the sequence of events was:
> >
> > 1 "open source" windows driver available (can be used with ndiswrapper)
> > 2 someone ports windows driver to linux
> > 3 linux driver available
> >
> > These events are sequential, and event 3 does not erase event 1.
>
> Was the open source windows driver ever available as a Debian
> package ?  It seems clear to me that anything which requires you to
> install non-Debian stuff on your machine belongs in contrib, even if
> the reason for the dependency being non-Debian is not non-freeness.

I don't believe it was ever available as a Debian package.

I'll also note that the "require" concept here gets interesting,
in this context,  as it's different from the concepts expressed in
our packaging system.

--
Raul

Message #241 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>

To: moth@debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:25:02 +0000

Raul Miller writes ("Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main"):
> On 2/21/06, Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > Was the open source windows driver ever available as a Debian
> > package ?  It seems clear to me that anything which requires you to
> > install non-Debian stuff on your machine belongs in contrib, even if
> > the reason for the dependency being non-Debian is not non-freeness.
> 
> I don't believe it was ever available as a Debian package.
> 
> I'll also note that the "require" concept here gets interesting,
> in this context,  as it's different from the concepts expressed in
> our packaging system.

Indeed.  But, an unsatisfiable `Depends' is worse than an undocumented
dependency on a non-Debian package, but only because it's more
annoying during your system management.

Ian.

Message #246 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main (was: Bug#353277: should be in contrib)

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:20:42 +0200

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:52:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:43:39PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > What makes 'running free windows drivers for stuff' so much more
> > unrealistic than 'running free windows software for stuff'? Especially
> > seen as how no Windows software is packaged for Debian, so that our
> > users would have to do this themselves?
 
> I can, personally, point to Free Software that I've run under Wine on
> Debian.  I can't do the same for free drivers running under ndiswrapper, and
> I don't see that anyone else in this discussion has done so either.  That
> makes the second case a hypothetical, and IMHO it seems to be a contrived
> one.

Emulators/games have been moved[1] from contrib to main after someone 
has done free data files which are essentially "proof of concept" 
in nature. I fail to see why availability of a CIPE driver for 
ndiswrapper doesn't fall into the same category.

A requirement for main "must be usefull in a free software only
enviroinement" is the the beginning of the road to madness. Next
theill come for free clients for protocols that (currently) only
have non-free servers to connect to. Who the hell has the right to
define what is usefull anyway?

[1] sarien atleast

Message #251 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Margarita Manterola" <margamanterola@gmail.com>

To: moth@debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:33:36 -0300

On 2/21/06, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/20/06, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As a specific counter example, consider
> > > http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> > > which is a project porting a windows driver to linux.  This port
> > > appears to be possible because the windows driver was made
> > > available under a free license.
> >
> > With this particular driver, I think you are making a mistake.  rt2x00
> > is available as an independent driver (i.e. without ndiswrapper).
>
> What is my mistake?
>
> It looks to me as if the sequence of events was:
>
> 1 "open source" windows driver available (can be used with ndiswrapper)
> 2 someone ports windows driver to linux
> 3 linux driver available

Well, I couldn't find any trace of "1" ever happening.  If it ever
happened, then it's ok.  But as far as I know, the Ralink company went
directly to 2 (porting there non-free windows driver to linux, and
then making it free).  Can you provide any evidence that 1 ever
happened?

I'd be glad to learn that this is not so, since I _would_ like to have
ndiswrapper in main.  It's just that I felt the example was bugged.

--
Besos,
Marga

Message #256 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Raul Miller" <moth.debian@gmail.com>

To: "Margarita Manterola" <margamanterola@gmail.com>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:31:22 -0500

On 2/27/06, Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/21/06, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1 "open source" windows driver available (can be used with ndiswrapper)

> Well, I couldn't find any trace of "1" ever happening.  If it ever
> happened, then it's ok.  But as far as I know, the Ralink company went
> directly to 2 (porting there non-free windows driver to linux, and
> then making it free).  Can you provide any evidence that 1 ever
> happened?

You could be right.  I was going on second-hand evidence, and it
may very well be that the open source drivers that were being ported
were really linux drivers for other ralink hardware.

Note that we have a more general problem here -- we should not
have to find the answer to an open-ended question to determine
the suitability of a package for main.

If a package requires something else to be installed before it can be
used, we shouldn't have to figure out whether or not there exists a
suitable free version of that other software -- if it's not in main, we know
that this other software hasn't been packaged, and that should be
sufficient to push package which requires it be installed into contrib.

--
Raul

Message #261 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

To: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:05:16 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

I hereby appeal to the technical committee to reject to rule on this
request, on the grounds that this is not a technical matter, and
therefore falls outside the authority of the technical committee.

The question at hand is whether the statement "this package is not
useful without non-free software, even though it will run without
non-free software" is relevant wrt the requirement which is in Policy
that no package in main must require any package outside of main to be
built or executed. This is not a technical issue; it is simply a matter
of interpretation of the social contract--which is clearly not a
technical issue.

The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General
Resolution.

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #266 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bas Zoetekouw <bas@debian.org>

To: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:51:41 +0100

Hi Wouter!

You wrote:

> The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
> authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
> or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General
> Resolution.

Wouldn't the ftp-masters be the right authority for this issue?  It is
them who decide if the package can go into main or not.

-- 
Kind regards,
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw              | GPG key: 0644fab7                     |
|----------------------------| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| bas@o2w.nl, bas@debian.org |              a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ 

Message #271 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl>

To: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:52:49 +0100

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
> authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
> or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General
> Resolution.

You (or whoever feels strongly about this) could also provide a
motivation to ftpmaster@ why you believe so, and ask for
reconsideration. Everybody, even the ftp-master team, can make
mistakes, or be persuadated to change mind provided with a good
argumentation. I also note that the only ftp-master team member that
spoke up in this thread seems to be inclined to prefer contrib over main
for this package. There was no mail at all to ftpmaster@ about this, nor
a bugreport filed/reassigned to the ftp.debian.org pseudopackage.

Shouldn't overruling of any sort only happen after talking to the
involved parties failed to yield a satisfactionary response? C.f.
Constitution 6.3.6:

| Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort.
| 
| The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until efforts
| to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed, unless it has
| been asked to make a decision by the person or body who would normally
| be responsible for it.

Of course, this paragraph only applies if one assumes the (initial)
authority to make the main vs contrib decision is with ftp-master, but I
believe it is.

--Jeroen
Another FTP-Team member, who doesn't yet have an opinion on this matter,
but hasn't been asked for one either

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl

Message #276 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:34:10 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

> I hereby appeal to the technical committee to reject to rule on this
> request, on the grounds that this is not a technical matter, and
> therefore falls outside the authority of the technical committee.

The Section: field of a Debian package's control file is a technical detail
of the package, as is the location of a package on the Debian mirror.  You
may consider that a particular decision has political motivations, but this
may be true of many technical decisions; the technical outcomes are still
under the purview of the Technical Committee.

Having been asked to override the maintainer's decision to list this package
as belonging to Section: misc instead of Section: contrib/misc, I believe
the committee has a responsibility to consider the issue.

> The question at hand is whether the statement "this package is not
> useful without non-free software, even though it will run without
> non-free software" is relevant wrt the requirement which is in Policy
> that no package in main must require any package outside of main to be
> built or executed. This is not a technical issue; it is simply a matter
> of interpretation of the social contract--which is clearly not a
> technical issue.

The question we have been asked to consider is, "which section should the
ndiswrapper package list in its control file?"  This is a technical
question, political factors notwithstanding.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #281 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl>

Cc: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:02:48 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:52:49PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
> > authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
> > or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General
> > Resolution.

> You (or whoever feels strongly about this) could also provide a
> motivation to ftpmaster@ why you believe so, and ask for
> reconsideration. Everybody, even the ftp-master team, can make
> mistakes, or be persuadated to change mind provided with a good
> argumentation. I also note that the only ftp-master team member that
> spoke up in this thread seems to be inclined to prefer contrib over main
> for this package. There was no mail at all to ftpmaster@ about this, nor
> a bugreport filed/reassigned to the ftp.debian.org pseudopackage.

> Shouldn't overruling of any sort only happen after talking to the
> involved parties failed to yield a satisfactionary response? C.f.
> Constitution 6.3.6:

> | Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort.
> | 
> | The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until efforts
> | to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed, unless it has
> | been asked to make a decision by the person or body who would normally
> | be responsible for it.

> Of course, this paragraph only applies if one assumes the (initial)
> authority to make the main vs contrib decision is with ftp-master, but I
> believe it is.

You and I both know that the ftp team is not going to unilaterally move a
package from main to contrib; the package would need to be reuploaded, by
the maintainer or in NMU, and pass through the NEW queue.  If an upload had
been made to move ndiswrapper to contrib and the ftp team had rejected this
upload, that would definitely be an ftp team decision to be discussed
between the ftp team and the uploader, with an appeal to the tech ctte if an
agreement cannot be reached.  But the only decision the ctte has been asked
to overturn here has been the decision of the package maintainer to have the
package in main, and the maintainer has explicitly said he will not move the
package without a ruling from the tech ctte.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #286 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

To: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 01:03:56 -0300

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Section: field of a Debian package's control file is a technical detail
> of the package, as is the location of a package on the Debian mirror.  You
> may consider that a particular decision has political motivations, but this
> may be true of many technical decisions; the technical outcomes are still
> under the purview of the Technical Committee.

(OBdisclaimer: I could care less wether ndiswrapper is in main, contrib, or
/dev/null)

Steve, it is rare that I disagree with you, but frankly, that makes no sense
at all.  Either that, or I misunderstood what you meant.

You have here a political/social fact "A" which causes a technical
device/method/procedure "B" to exist/happen.

The ctte can override how B is done, but only insofar as to implement *the
same* "A".

Otherwise, the ctte could overrule just about everything in Debian.  Were
they not bound by the SC themselves, they could overrule even the SC itself
by determining that the files that determine in which suite a package go
should make all packages in the non-free suite go into the main suite.

> Having been asked to override the maintainer's decision to list this package
> as belonging to Section: misc instead of Section: contrib/misc, I believe
> the committee has a responsibility to consider the issue.

They can consider it, obviously.  They cannot overrule ftp-masters on this
matter, however.  OTOH, ftp-masters may decide to listen to whatever the
ctte recommends, but they don't *have* to.

> > The question at hand is whether the statement "this package is not
> > useful without non-free software, even though it will run without
> > non-free software" is relevant wrt the requirement which is in Policy
> > that no package in main must require any package outside of main to be
> > built or executed. This is not a technical issue; it is simply a matter
> > of interpretation of the social contract--which is clearly not a
> > technical issue.

Agreed.

But ndiswrappers being in main or contrib is a sad reason for a GR.

> The question we have been asked to consider is, "which section should the
> ndiswrapper package list in its control file?"  This is a technical

The answer to that question is: the one policy determines it to.  The ctte
can not say much more than that, packages are not placed into a *suite*
(main or contrib) because of any sort of technical concern.

Placement inside the suit (whether in main/foo or main/bar) might be
different, as it is a best-fit question decided only on technical grounds,
but that's outside the scope of this thread.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Message #291 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 22:15:36 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:03:56AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The Section: field of a Debian package's control file is a technical detail
> > of the package, as is the location of a package on the Debian mirror.  You
> > may consider that a particular decision has political motivations, but this
> > may be true of many technical decisions; the technical outcomes are still
> > under the purview of the Technical Committee.

> (OBdisclaimer: I could care less wether ndiswrapper is in main, contrib, or
> /dev/null)

> Steve, it is rare that I disagree with you, but frankly, that makes no sense
> at all.  Either that, or I misunderstood what you meant.

> You have here a political/social fact "A" which causes a technical
> device/method/procedure "B" to exist/happen.

> The ctte can override how B is done, but only insofar as to implement *the
> same* "A".

> Otherwise, the ctte could overrule just about everything in Debian.  Were
> they not bound by the SC themselves, they could overrule even the SC itself
> by determining that the files that determine in which suite a package go
> should make all packages in the non-free suite go into the main suite.

I wonder why you think it's *not* the intention of the constitution that the
technical committee be in a position to overrule "just about everything in
Debian".  The exact phrasing of the constitution is:

  4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).

  The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular technical
  course of action even if the Developer does not wish to; this requires a
  3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may determine that a complaint
  made by the submitter of a bug is justified and that the submitter's
  proposed solution should be implemented.

Nowhere do I see anything that says the committee must limit itself to
requiring a developer to take a particular technical course of action *that
agrees with the developer's pre-existing political views on the issue*.  I
mean, it shouldn't have to be said that developers are going to disagree
with a technical committee who is overriding them for some reason or
another, and I think it's rare that a technical decision is free of all
non-technical considerations.  Given that the technical committee is the
only appelate body defined in the constitution, I don't believe it was ever
intended that their authority could be vetoed by claiming that a particular
technical decision was made on religious grounds.

The bottom line is, the technical committee can't override our foundation
documents, and it would be unwise for the committee to run around randomly
overriding developers all the time; but otherwise, this *is* the power that
the constitution invests in the TC, and you kinda have to trust that we
won't abuse it.

> > The question we have been asked to consider is, "which section should the
> > ndiswrapper package list in its control file?"  This is a technical

> The answer to that question is: the one policy determines it to.  The ctte
> can not say much more than that, packages are not placed into a *suite*
> (main or contrib) because of any sort of technical concern.

Policy claims to be a technical document.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #296 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

To: 353277@bugs.debian.org, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:43:45 -0300

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:03:56AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Otherwise, the ctte could overrule just about everything in Debian.  Were
> > they not bound by the SC themselves, they could overrule even the SC itself
> > by determining that the files that determine in which suite a package go
> > should make all packages in the non-free suite go into the main suite.
> 
> I wonder why you think it's *not* the intention of the constitution that the
> technical committee be in a position to overrule "just about everything in
> Debian".  The exact phrasing of the constitution is:

*IMHO* the constitution doesn't feel like that was the intention, and it
doesn't read like that either.  So, please excuse me if I will not read into
the constitution overlord powers for any body (ctte included) unless it is
explicitly written in there.

Of course, I can be convinced that the constitution does give the ctte that
power, but so far, I am not.   Otherwise, why didn't we pose to the ctte a
request for how the GFDL issue should be handled?

>   4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
> 
>   The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular technical
>   course of action even if the Developer does not wish to; this requires a
>   3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may determine that a complaint
>   made by the submitter of a bug is justified and that the submitter's
>   proposed solution should be implemented.

Overruling a Developer is so far from "being able to overrule just about
everything in Debian" that it ain't funny.  The example given is also of a
Debian Developer in typical package maintenance function, and not of the
Secretary, ftp-masters, or other delegates (and de-facto delegates) of the
DPL when acting on their roles.

To me, it is obvious that the ctte can resolve a dispute with the
ftp-masters when the interpretation of the DFSG, SC, a GR or the
constitution is not the object of the dispute.

> Nowhere do I see anything that says the committee must limit itself to
> requiring a developer to take a particular technical course of action *that
> agrees with the developer's pre-existing political views on the issue*.  I

Who said anything about the developer's pre-existing views? of course the
ctte can't be bound by that, it wouldn't be able to do its job otherwise.

I *specifically* talked about project-wide policy, as in that set by GRs,
the SC, the DFSG, the constitution and whatever else we have that sets
policy (and I am *NOT* talking about the Debian policy document, btw).

> only appelate body defined in the constitution, I don't believe it was ever
> intended that their authority could be vetoed by claiming that a particular
> technical decision was made on religious grounds.

Constitution section 6.1.3 makes it clear that if the right person appeals,
the ctte is brought into play without any possibility of other parts
complaining (well, of their complaints affecting the appeal, anyway).

You can appeal to the ctte always, but it doesn't have powers to *enforce*
its decision unless its under 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 sections of the
constitution.  AFAIK the ftp-masters didn't appeal, so 6.1.3 is out (if they
did appeal, then the question is indeed in the ctte enforcement sphere
because of that).  6.1.2 is out as this is not a jurisdiction question.

6.1.4 could be worded much better. Does that apply to any registered member
of the Debian project (that includes everyone, DPL and Secretary, DPL
delegates and common Developers)?  Or does it apply to the Developers as
defined by 2, which clearly separates the DPL, Secretary, DPL delegates, the
CTTE, a Developer doing an unamed task of his and the body of Developers?

The way it is written, IMHO 6.1.4 is directed to a single Developer doing
one of the usual Developer things (i.e. packaging, bug-fixing, etc), as
opposed to delegates and other specialized tasks, or the entire body of
Developers.

As for 6.1.1, IMHO the examples and the emphasis on technical make it quite
clear that stuff like interpreting the constitution and DFSG is not in
6.1.1's scope.  I think this is uncontroversial, at least Ian Jackson seems
to hold a similar position about 6.1.1, in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg00002.html (last paragraph).

> the constitution invests in the TC, and you kinda have to trust that we
> won't abuse it.

I do trust the ctte not to go around abusing its power. I would trust the
ctte to not take extreme decisions that would split the project even when
within its power as well (instead, I expect the ctte would call for an GR on
the matter).

But I still don't think the ctte has power to overlord about everything in
Debian, unless you mean that it can be *requested* to do so by a body that
has the power to address a given issue already, through 6.1.3.

> > > The question we have been asked to consider is, "which section should the
> > > ndiswrapper package list in its control file?"  This is a technical
> 
> > The answer to that question is: the one policy determines it to.  The ctte
> > can not say much more than that, packages are not placed into a *suite*
> > (main or contrib) because of any sort of technical concern.
> 
> Policy claims to be a technical document.

I did mean policy as policy, not the "Debian policy document".  Policy in
Debian is set by a lot of things, the foremost being the constitution and
the social contract.

The technical Debian policy document is clearly inside the ctte sphere.

If you can convince me that placement of a package in contrib or main is
purely a matter of interpretation of the Debian policy document (which is
technical), then yes, I will be convinced that the ctte can rule the
ndiswrapper placement, even if ftp-masters never asked it to.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Message #301 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 10:15:24 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:43:45PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Of course, I can be convinced that the constitution does give the ctte that
> power, but so far, I am not.   Otherwise, why didn't we pose to the ctte a
> request for how the GFDL issue should be handled?

I can answer that: first, because I didn't think the committee was ready
to deal with such an important issue at the time (and still don't),
and second because I think having ignored the GFDL for this long that
it's not a simple matter to apply existing policy, and thus appropriate
for ftpmaster/release team/tech ctte to decide off their own bat.

Cheers,
aj

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #306 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 16:47:17 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:43:45PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> To me, it is obvious that the ctte can resolve a dispute with the
> ftp-masters when the interpretation of the DFSG, SC, a GR or the
> constitution is not the object of the dispute.

> > Nowhere do I see anything that says the committee must limit itself to
> > requiring a developer to take a particular technical course of action *that
> > agrees with the developer's pre-existing political views on the issue*.  I

> Who said anything about the developer's pre-existing views? of course the
> ctte can't be bound by that, it wouldn't be able to do its job otherwise.

> I *specifically* talked about project-wide policy, as in that set by GRs,
> the SC, the DFSG, the constitution and whatever else we have that sets
> policy (and I am *NOT* talking about the Debian policy document, btw).

Well, I agree with you that overruling the foundation documents is out of
scope for the technical committee; except the tech ctte has not been asked to
interpret or overrule the foundation documents.  The Social Contract
mandates that the Debian system not require the use of non-free components,
but it doesn't go into any detail -- the distinction between "main",
"contrib", and "non-free" is only specified in Debian's technical policy.
It is this latter that we have been asked to rule on -- to "interpret the
interpretation", so to speak.

If you think that Debian policy's definition of these archive sections,
or the ftp team's implementation of it, is incompatible with the Social
Contract, that is indeed not a technical question and it would be
inappropriate for the TC to overrule another developer's understanding of
the Social Contract; a matter such as that ought to be settled by GR
instead.  But that's not the question that has been put before us.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #311 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be>

To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:23:49 +0100

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:47:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If you think that Debian policy's definition of these archive sections,
> or the ftp team's implementation of it, is incompatible with the Social
> Contract, that is indeed not a technical question and it would be
> inappropriate for the TC to overrule another developer's understanding of
> the Social Contract; a matter such as that ought to be settled by GR
> instead.  But that's not the question that has been put before us.

Actually, I believe it is. But it's not my authority to force that upon
you, you have to make your own decision in that regard.

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Message #316 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question

Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:05:53 -0800

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:47:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, I agree with you that overruling the foundation documents is out of
> scope for the technical committee; except the tech ctte has not been asked to
> interpret or overrule the foundation documents.  The Social Contract
> mandates that the Debian system not require the use of non-free components,
> but it doesn't go into any detail -- the distinction between "main",
> "contrib", and "non-free" is only specified in Debian's technical policy.
> It is this latter that we have been asked to rule on -- to "interpret the
> interpretation", so to speak.

IMHO, the Policy text is crystal clear.  If that has undesirable
implications, then it should be changed to say what it really means.

--Adam

Message #329 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#353277: Call for vote: ndiswrapper: Move to contrib

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:16:52 -0600

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I hereby call for an immediate TC vote on the question of whether ndiswrapper 
should be moved to contrib, requested by bugs #353277 and #353278.  

As Anthony noted in his recent summary of open issues, there were four votes 
on his earlier proposal, in favour from Anthony and Manoj, against from Ian 
and Raul.  Time has passed and additional discussion has occurred, so what 
I'd like to ask is that we treat this as a fresh vote of the current TC 
members in hopes of finally bringing this issue to closure, perhaps still in 
time for our decision to be reflected in the etch release.

Since this vote may overrule a developer, 6.1.3 of our Constitution requires
a 3:1 majority of the TC for choice 1.

  In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
  the brackets next to your next choice.  Continue until you reach your last
  choice.  Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 3.  You may
  skip numbers.  You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you
  make fall in the range 1 <= X <= 3).

  To vote "no, no matter what" rank "Further discussion" as more
  desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the "Further
  discussion" choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable
  blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
  choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further
  Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
  choices, if any.)

- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[   ] Choice 1: ndiswrapper should move to contrib as per bugs #353277, #353278
[   ] Choice 2: ndiswrapper should remain in main despite bugs #353277, #353278
[   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Bdale
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFGC+ZiZKfAp/LPAagRAiw5AJ9WdBhhnGXQU07N7gqK4aw8MFaSaACferl5
mdpufKaWpcouKQr7ehd9rFU=
=xLx4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #334 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>

To: 353277@bugs.debian.org, 353278@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Call for vote: ndiswrapper: Move to contrib

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:25:07 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bdale Garbee writes ("Bug#353277: Call for vote: ndiswrapper: Move to contrib"):
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ 1 ] Choice 1: ndiswrapper should move to contrib as per bugs #353277...
> [ 3 ] Choice 2: ndiswrapper should remain in main despite bugs #353277...
> [ 2 ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGC+hX8jyP9GfyNQARAsIxAJ96xWLa9WJz1jmgcRL1zIW1kEv4EwCfWixG
w5D+mySaAIjU6ZC8eshuZXU=
=f9RD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #339 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org, 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Call for vote: ndiswrapper: Move to contrib

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:42:52 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:16:52AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ 2 ] Choice 1: ndiswrapper should move to contrib as per bugs #353277, #353278
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: ndiswrapper should remain in main despite bugs #353277, #353278
> [ 3 ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Rationale: as per [0]:

"The purpose of the ndiswrapper package is to provide an ABI layer on top
of the Linux kernel that is compatible with the interface for Windows
NDIS drivers, and that in order to provide this compatability layer,
no non-free software is required."

Cheers,
aj

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/03/msg00037.html

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #344 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>

To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Cc: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Call for vote: ndiswrapper: Move to contrib

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:58:42 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ 2 ] Choice 1: ndiswrapper should move to contrib as per bugs #353277, #353278
[ 1 ] Choice 2: ndiswrapper should remain in main despite bugs #353277, #353278
[ 3 ] Choice 3: Further discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

        I tend to give more weight to the license of the software
 itself; which in this case is free; that the supposed intent of the
 users (there was the WEP cracker software recently introduced,
 despite people complaining it was a black hat only tool -- and
 countered by other people saying it can have security uses).

        I also found compelling the scenario that even if users used
 free software in conjunction with non-free data/drivers, there is
 potential for free data/drivers to be created, and then users shall
 find a tested, well known, free software suite ready to go the rest
 of the way.  Let not perfect be the enemy of the good.

        manoj
-- 
It's more than magnificent -- it's mediocre. Sam Goldwyn
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #349 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

To: 353277@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 353278@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Call for vote: ndiswrapper: Move to contrib

Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 09:24:55 -0600

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee) writes:

> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ 2 ] Choice 1: ndiswrapper should move to contrib as per bugs #353277, #353278
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: ndiswrapper should remain in main despite bugs #353277, #353278
> [ 3 ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I concur with http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/03/msg00037.html.

Bdale
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFGD86/ZKfAp/LPAagRAsyNAJ9at5lzMnBnl+IsMKALEGvksC2BBQCghsxv
tKxVs0HK61ucHyzVviZdjLs=
=npVo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #356 received at 353277@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, 353277@bugs.debian.org, 353278@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Call for vote: ndiswrapper: Move to contrib

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 23:52:18 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:16:52AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> As Anthony noted in his recent summary of open issues, there were four votes 
> on his earlier proposal, in favour from Anthony and Manoj, against from Ian 
> and Raul.  Time has passed and additional discussion has occurred, so what 
> I'd like to ask is that we treat this as a fresh vote of the current TC 
> members in hopes of finally bringing this issue to closure, perhaps still in 
> time for our decision to be reflected in the etch release.

Only if the decision is in favor of the status quo ;)

> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ 2 ] Choice 1: ndiswrapper should move to contrib as per bugs #353277, #353278
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: ndiswrapper should remain in main despite bugs #353277, #353278
> [ 3 ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #361 received at 353277-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

To: 353277-done@bugs.debian.org, 353278-done@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#353277: Call for vote: ndiswrapper: Move to contrib

Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:16:40 -0600

bdale@gag.com (Bdale Garbee) writes:

> I hereby call for an immediate TC vote on the question of whether ndiswrapper 
> should be moved to contrib, requested by bugs #353277 and #353278.  

With 5 of 7 TC members voting, the outcome is no longer in doubt... ndiswrapper
remains in main.

Bdale

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.