From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jun 27 0:46:47 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4074237B6B8 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:46:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA72926 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:46:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id BAA32993 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:44:53 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200006270744.BAA32993@harmony.village.org> Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:25:10 MDT." Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:44:53 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -------- I hate to follow up to myself. I did want to add that if my logic on why the license doesn't matter is faulty somehow, I would like to know. The one problem that I see people bringing up is the desire for anything that replaces lpr/lpd to be modifiable by parties not wishing to disclose those modifications in source form, but distribute them in object form only. Evidentally, there are people that have done this now and would most likely wish to do something similar with lprng if we were to import it. Do I have the gist of the objection understood? Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message