From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jul 11 6:46: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from jasper.nighttide.net (jasper.nighttide.net [216.227.178.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89BE837B931; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:46:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from darren@nighttide.net) Received: from localhost (darren@localhost) by jasper.nighttide.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02328; Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:45:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Darren Henderson To: "David O'Brien" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Chuck Robey wrote: > I think) that were done. He didn't want to be blamed if it wasn't 100% > exactly how he gave it to us. I can understand that and even sympathize with the idea. However, adding software to the standard distribution that doesn't share the same license of most of that distribution is a bad thing. What a pain it would be if there were dozens of slight BSD license variations. There are exceptions but they should only be made when there no suitable alternatives. Thats not the case here. LPRng is available in the ports and the folks that need its functionality aren't unduely harmed if its not in the standard distribution. From the arguements I've seen so far I'd say its not worth making the switch. LPRng is a nice package, its easily obtainable if someone wants it. ______________________________________________________________________ Darren Henderson darren@nighttide.net Help fight junk e-mail, visit http://www.cauce.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message