Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:22:27 -0700 From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> To: papowell@astart.com Cc: dcs@newsguy.com, drosih@rpi.edu, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues Message-ID: <200007131823.e6DINPm01487@cwsys.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:47:24 PDT." <200007131547.IAA08398@h4.private>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200007131547.IAA08398@h4.private>, papowell@astart.com writes: > > From drosih@rpi.edu Mon Jul 10 09:18:21 2000 > > Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:19:14 -0400 > > To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> > > From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> > > Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues > > Cc: papowell@astart.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG > > > > In the message you replied to, I was again just asking for a better > > understanding of the licensing. Your comment (the part I quoted), > > states that the 'package in ports' is (and thus always will be) > > under Artistic/GPL license. I was just underlining that statement, > > to see if the implication of "always will be" is true. Ie, is it > > true that FreeBSD will NOT get a BSD+keep-copyright license for > > lprNG if we leave lprNG as a port? > > > > That is just a question. It is not an argument. > > You can keep the port. In fact, I will even supply a Makefile > and some other stuff for the port. In fact, if you look in the > LPRng-VERSION/DISTRIBUTIONS/FreeBSD directory you will even find > the necessary stuff to generate a port: > > cd LPRng-VERSION/DISTRIBUTIONS/FreeBSD-4.ports.systutils.LPRng > make portit > > and you will get a diff of the new version against the current one > in /usr/ports/sysutils/LPRng. Then create a wrapper similar to /usr/sbin/sendmail that calls the real lpr/lpd/lpc/etc based on a config file in /etc and set NO_LPR=true in make.conf. Making both lpr and LPRng as packages would be the best compromise. (Same could be said about Sendmail, BIND and nvi [I'm partial to vim]). A better idea would be to expand the sendmail wrapper to not only handle MTA's but most any application that could be replaced, making it a more generic wrapper. I realize that I am discussing implementation details when we haven't even decided whether to replace lpr or not, but this implementation detail may mean that we don't have to have an all-or-nothing approach and hopefully satisfy both camps. Call it compromise if you may or making whatever decision we make more palatable to all. This implementation detail may even reduce arguing about future issues like this one. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/DEC Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA Province of BC 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?200007131823.e6DINPm01487>