Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:12:55 -0600
From:      Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>
To:        Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.osd.bsdi.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, papowell@astart.com
Subject:   Re: was: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD?
Message-ID:  <39545167.AE635015@softweyr.com>
References:  <17253.961705123@localhost> <200006222046.e5MKkKn07168@cwsys.cwsent.com> <20000622235602.A1088@kilt.nothing-going-on.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nik Clayton wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:45:52PM -0700, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group wrote:
> > In message <17253.961705123@localhost>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
> > > > > LPRng is distributed under the GNU and Artistic licenses.
> > > >
> > > > If Patrick drops the GNU license in favour of a BSD license it should
> > > > be O.K.
> > >
> > > I'll repeat what Nik said above: "LPRng is distributed under the GNU
> > > and Artistic licenses."  Those are the two you get to choose from and
> > > that's just the breaks.  Note that one of them is not the GPL.
> >
> > He said GNU and Artistic licences.
> >             ^^^
> > I took that to mean no choice.
> >
> > Having read the copyright, it is not GPL.  LPRng uses GNU gettext,
> > which is GPL, for NLS support.  In other words it is distributed under
> > GNU and Artistic licenses, meaning no choice.  Would that be
> > problematic (either omitting NLS support or requiring the gettext for
> > any builds that require NLS support) for anyone?  Otherwise to keep
> > life simple, it should stay in ports.
> 
> Just for reference, does this mean that
> 
>     http://www.astart.com/lprng/license.txt
> 
> is wrong?  It says
> 
>     You may use "LPRng" or "IFHP" under either the terms of the GNU
>     GPL License or the Artistic License. These licenses are included
>     below.
> 
> which contradicts you.

Yes, it is wrong.  If it must be linked with GNU gettext, no matter
what their license is, the resulting executable has been infected
with the GPL virus.

So much for choice.

Has anyone looked at hacking out or replacing GNU gettext?

-- 
            "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?39545167.AE635015>