Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:44:19 -0600 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: justin@apple.com Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: was: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? Message-ID: <39584D43.CF617FB7@softweyr.com> References: <200006270226.TAA01222@rhapture.apple.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Justin C. Walker" wrote:
>
> > From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>
> > Date: 2000-06-26 19:13:04 -0700
> > To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>
> > Subject: Re: was: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD?
> > Cc: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com>, Wes Peters
> > <wes@softweyr.com>,Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>,
> > arch@FreeBSD.ORG, papowell@astart.com
> > In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006262159420.318-100000@picnic.mat.net>;
> > fromchuckr@picnic.mat.net on Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 10:06:30PM -0400
> > X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG
> > X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386
> > X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
> > Delivered-to: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
> >
> > 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 don't read the artistic license this way. Seems like it requires
> only that you keep copyrights attached, and if you make changes, you
> either provide the original along with the changed version, or make
> the effort to get the changes back to the Copyright Holder for
> incorporation.
>
> In addition, point 5 seems to indicate that it's OK to include it
> "in aggregate", including use as part of a commercial software
> release, without violating the agreement, as long as you don't claim
> that lprng is "FreeBSD code" (keep the attributions correct, or
> somesuch).
In particular, it does not allow you to advertise "the Package" as being
a product of your company. The simplest way around this is to not
mention "the Package" by name at all. I.e. you are not allowed to
advertise "New, Improved! with Frobozz Corp LPRng 1.23". You can say
"New, Improved! Frobozz Print Server 1.23 with improved printer support"
or some such.
Section 4 of the Artistic License does look problematic for anyone trying
to sell a product including a "customized" version of LPRng. None of
options 4 a, b, or c look appealing, and I've grown very leery of
"make other distribution arrangements with copyright holder."
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
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?39584D43.CF617FB7>