Re: opencpn: binaries without source.
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
Reply to: