From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jul 10 9:18:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.100.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14CB337BE80 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:18:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA819456; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:18:24 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3969EAB6.680648FE@newsguy.com> References: <3969CBB1.2E3C793C@newsguy.com> <3969EAB6.680648FE@newsguy.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:19:14 -0400 To: "Daniel C. Sobral" From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues Cc: papowell@astart.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 12:24 AM +0900 7/11/00, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: >Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > > > >The package in the ports is licensed under Artistic/GPL. The BSD + keep > > >copyright available on-demand is a much less restrictive license. > > > > So, the assumption is that FreeBSD will only be allowed to use the > > BSD license if it removes the current version of lpr and changes > > lprNG from a port to an integral part of the distributed system? > >No, that's not the assumption. I'm just countering your argument that >the version imported would be _less_ "free" or "flexible" or something >than the version in the ports. Just as an aside, I think we're a bit out-of-sync here. I have not made any assertions about lprNG being free or flexible (or not-free or not-flexible). About all I've said recently in this discussion was that I wanted someone to clarify the licensing issues that BSD/OS had for lprNG, and what that implies for licensing under freebsd. In the message you replied to, I was again just asking for a better understanding of the licensing. Your comment (the part I quoted), states that the 'package in ports' is (and thus always will be) under Artistic/GPL license. I was just underlining that statement, to see if the implication of "always will be" is true. Ie, is it true that FreeBSD will NOT get a BSD+keep-copyright license for lprNG if we leave lprNG as a port? That is just a question. It is not an argument. --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message