From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jun 26 19:25:19 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8DA37BDC7 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:25:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e5R2HoU11165; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:17:50 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Bill Fumerola Cc: Chuck Robey , Will Andrews , Wes Peters , Sheldon Hearn , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, papowell@astart.com Subject: Re: was: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? Message-ID: <20000626191750.I275@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000626214900.G23538@argon.gryphonsoft.com> <20000626221208.T5255@jade.chc-chimes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000626221208.T5255@jade.chc-chimes.com>; from billf@chc-chimes.com on Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 10:12:08PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Bill Fumerola [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