This one time, at band camp, Adam McKenna said: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > I guess I think the right test is: "Is this package useful in a > > system with only free software on it?" Useful is a pragmatic > > question; if every proposed use has a better solution already ready > > and implemented, then I think the proposed use should not count. > > I think it's the task of those who would ask the tech committee to > overrule the maintainer's judgement and remove ndiswrapper from Debian > to prove that ndiswrapper is not useful without non-free software, not > the other way around.
Additionally, the use of the phrase "useful in a system with only free software on it" is not something I can find in either 2.2.1 or 2.2.2 (where the difference between main and contrib is spelled out) or anywhere in our foundation documents. Can you point me to where this requirement is mentioned in our policy and/or foundation documents? If it is not currently in policy or our foundation documents, can you explain why this new requirement should be applied for technical reasons? This certainly seems like an ideological problem, rather than a technical one, making the tech ctte a poor choice for conflict resolution. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
