On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:10:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 03:14:40AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: [...] > > It is already possible to use ndiswrapper without having any non-free > > software installed. Granted, it doesn't do much useful that way, > > If you have to differentiate between "able to be used" and "useful", > you don't have a point.
What if I'm interested in writing such a driver myself, but less interested in having to run Windows? > > 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. > > If it's only useful for non-free software, we should probably consider it. > More likely, it's not useful at all, and we should consider dropping it > entirely. How many libraries do we have in this state? apt-cache rdepends libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 Gee, only -dev, -dbg and gcc packages. Isn't that for non-free software? It's very easy, really. "Requires the use of non-free software" is a far cry from "only non-free software requires this software". You need wheels to use a car; you don't need a car to use wheels. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]