On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 08:45:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Apart from item (2), which I can't think of a major example of at present > > (OOo is in main because they just don't build the Java parts, AIUI), > > Still in contrib, last I knew.
Whoops, it is too. I thought I'd left contrib and non-free off the sources list on this box. Seems I didn't. Bad assumption on my part for that one. > > The mechanism by which the non-free software will come to be on your system > > (by hook or by crook, as it were) isn't a fundamental difference, IMO. > > The fundamental difference is that, in your first two cases above, > you're actually installing some free software that has value of its own > and presumably would be moved to main if the non-free software it > depended on was reimplemented or otherwise freed; whereas in the third > case, the free software is only useful *so long as* the non-free > software in question is non-free. Indeed. However, the point I was refuting was that installers shouldn't be in contrib because they caused non-free software to appear on the user's system. I was merely pointing out that there is no substantive difference in that point between non-free dependencies and installers. Personally, I'd love it if installers could go away because the software became DFSG-free and so could be packaged directly. But, the unfortunate reality is that it isn't at present, and installer packages are a reasonable compromise between effectively telling our users "no, you can't manage that software using dpkg" and compromising the DFSG. I don't know if the presence of installers encourages or discourages the OSS implementation of various pieces of non-free software. I'm leaning towards the not case, though. - Matt
