I have overhauled and extended my old draft. See below, and please comment. I'm not formally proposing this just yet. We should vote on the alternatives together.
The draft below, broadly speaking: * is advisory * says `contrib' Note that I'm going to be away from my email from Saturday the 11th to Sunday the 19th inclusive, and will have a huge backlog when I get back. I'll try to prioritise the committee list and at least read and vote. Ian. BACKGROUND 1. The committee has been asked to rule on the question of whether ndiswrapper should be in the `main' or `contrib' component of the archive. 2. There are no technical reasons for ndiswrapper to be in main; nor any for it to be in contrib. The Debian system and our own development processes will work just as well either way. 3. ndiswrapper's purpose is to allow non-Debian (and typically non-free) drivers to be used. 4. While there may be cases where ndiswrapper can be used with a DFSG-free driver, these are exceptional and contrived, and none of these drivers are available in Debian main. 5. We do not wish to overturn or change what we regard as established political policy about the distinction between main and contrib, and we do not wish to usurp the political authority of the Project Leader or other Developers. 6. In the past, when the Committee has declined to issue an opinion and instead simply passed nontechnical decisions to the Project Leader and Delegates, no decision at all was forthcoming. OPINION 7. This is not a technical issue, so does not fall into our explicit remit. However the Project would benefit from a clear statement of opinion by a decisionmaking body, even if it is only advisory. 8. Our reading of the current Policy Manual wording is that ndiswrapper falls fairly clearly into the area currently defined for `contrib'. 9. We are by and large satisfied with the intent behind the language in the Policy Manual regarding the distinction between non-free and contrib. However, the language in the Policy Manual is somewhat unclear and ambiguous, and by some readings inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS 10. ndiswrapper belongs in contrib. 11. References to `package outside of main', `packages which are not in our archive at all', etc., in the relevant part of the Policy Manual, should be changed to refer to `programs' or `software'. 12. The policy manual should be clarified to make it clear that free software to talk to non-free software over a network can remain in main. In our opinion the relevant principle is that: (i) If the user or administrator who is in charge of the Debian installation would have to adopt non-free software X to make sensible use of free software Y, then Y goes in contrib. (ii) However, if free software Y is used by the user or administrator of the Debian system to cope to with someone else's use of non-free software X on another system not under their control, then Y goes in main. REQUESTS 13. ftpmasters and the ndiswrapper maintainers should cooperate to move nsidwrapper to contrib. 14. The Policy Manual maintainers should take steps to adjust the language regarding main and contrib to clarify and improve it. The Maintainers should have regard to any opinions from other Developers, in particular the Leader, about the correct effect. 15. This decision is advisory; we are exercising only our power to offer advice (Constitution 6.1 clause 5). However, we strongly recommend that all parties concerned follow our advice unless and until a contrary statement is issued by the Project Leader or Delegate(s) (such as the ftpmaster team). THANKS 15. Thanks to Robert Millan for raising the issue; to Wouter Verhelst and others for their input on the topic; and to Andres Salomon for his ongoing efforts in maintaining the ndiswrapper packages. 16. Thanks also to everyone involved in this discussion for the civil, clear and constructive manner in which the argument has been conducted. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
