Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:21:05 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Darren Henderson <darren@nighttide.net> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues Message-ID: <20000711092105.E26861@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007110924190.2296-100000@jasper.nighttide.net>; from darren@nighttide.net on Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 09:45:48AM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007110803340.71063-100000@picnic.mat.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007110924190.2296-100000@jasper.nighttide.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 09:45:48AM -0400, Darren Henderson wrote: > 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 *already* are variations of the BSD license (which? there are 2-3 variations now from Berkeley). This smells of a smoke screen as the license is not as restrictive as the Artistic and GPL licence which we already have in the system. > LPRng is available in the ports and the folks that need its functionality > aren't unduely harmed if its not in the standard distribution. The existing LPR system is (1) becoming non-standard with the rest of BSD and Unix, and (2) is very antiquated and certainly isn't to the standards of how a piece of software should operate today. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) 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?20000711092105.E26861>