Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:17:50 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>, Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, papowell@astart.com Subject: Re: was: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? Message-ID: <20000626191750.I275@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20000626221208.T5255@jade.chc-chimes.com>; from billf@chc-chimes.com on Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 10:12:08PM -0400 References: <20000626214900.G23538@argon.gryphonsoft.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006262159420.318-100000@picnic.mat.net> <20000626221208.T5255@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> [000626 19:12] wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 10:06:30PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > > > I did, but I'm sorry, Artistic License != BSD License. The Artistic > > license says you can only use it inside your own organization, freely, you > > can not sell it or use it inside a product (like you can BSD). > > > > I will admit that the Artistic License is *far* more acceptable than the > > GPL, but I just don't see the need to get this in. I will immediately > > admit it's better software, but I can't see why we need it in the base > > system, when one of the side effects is losing a perfectly good BSD > > licensed lpd. > > This would limit us from having FreeBSD based printer-in-a-box type > solutions... I would have to agree, LPRng is not acceptable for replacement or inclusion. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000626191750.I275>