On 09/10/18 21:46, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 10/9/18 9:35 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
>> Yes, they must be separate packages - as a starter, they are separate >> upstreams That said, at a glance it looks possible to add such packages >> to the non-free section. If so, what needs to be considered in such a >> scenario? > > If the plugins cannot be built from source, non-free is not really > appropriate either. Despite what the policy footnote says. > > If there are plugins that have license issues, that restrict > modifications for example, those cannot be included in main and must go > to non-free. The opencpn package in main cannot Depend on nor Recommend > packages in non-free, if opencpn cannot work without non-free components > its needs to go to contrib, which like non-free is not officially part > of Debian (which implies not built on the buildds, not included in > various QA systems, etc). This part is no problem. It's the plugins which depends on opencpn, not the other way around. > For the benefit of its users OpenCPN should have a plugin manager to > distribute its plugins, so that they don't have to be packaged, and > hence don't have to conform to the distribution policies. Perhaps. But as it is, the plugins are basically distributed as github repos + some prebuilt packages for wWndows and MacOS + some debian packages in various shape. I have noted that the Nvidia closed-source drivers are available in the debian repos. From a legal point of view, isn't this similar? --a
