From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jun 27 15:59:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from obie.softweyr.com (obie.softweyr.com [204.68.178.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6FCA37BEFD for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:59:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.com (ip176.salt-lake-city6.ut.pub-ip.psi.net [38.27.95.176]) by obie.softweyr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA25519; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:59:07 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Message-ID: <39593208.7D132924@softweyr.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:00:24 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warner Losh Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? References: <200006270744.BAA32993@harmony.village.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Warner Losh wrote: > > -------- > 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? No. See my moments-previous rant about why you may not be able to distribute the "FreeBSD standard LPRng" in a binary product. -- "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