From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 30 11:54:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 683) id B6ADD16A4CF; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:54:38 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:54:38 +0000 From: Eivind Eklund To: Jose M Rodriguez Message-ID: <20041230115438.GB44922@FreeBSD.org> References: <20041229222343.GA71433@dragon.nuxi.com> <41D3BA59.9060505@redesjm.local> <20041230104323.GA44922@FreeBSD.org> <41D3DF08.2000207@redesjm.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41D3DF08.2000207@redesjm.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why do we have both ghostscript-gpl and ghostscript-gnu? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:54:38 -0000 On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Jose M Rodriguez wrote: > Eivind Eklund wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 09:20:41AM +0100, Jose M Rodriguez wrote: > >>David O'Brien wrote: > >>>What's the difference between ghostscript-gpl and ghostscript-gnu? A > >>>diff of their Makefile's doesn't make it any clearer. > >>Versions. > >>It was after a change in licence from the originator. > > > >According to the pkg-descr, these should both be the same (the GNU GPL). > > No. The originator licenses are different. go there for answers. The web page (which is the same) indicate that both are under the GPL, and that the -gpl (8.0) version if based on AFPL ghostscript (which is under a different license). This is the way the AFPL work has traditionally been done; make AFPL ghostscript available under the AFPL license, and then a year or so later make the same sources available under the GPL. If there is a license issue, I'd appreciate if you could give better references - I consider these things to be important to both understand and document. > >>-gnu must remain at 7.x and unmaintained. > >>-gpl is the new 8.x source distribution. > > > >Please add this information to pkg-descr. > > > >In general, whenever somebody copy a port - MAKE SURE BOTH pkg-descr FILES > >DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENCES. (This is a general plea - we've got maybe a > >hundred > >duplicates, and they're annoying.) > > Will work, time permiting, but the original repocopy/patch is not mine. Note: This wasn't specifically meant for you - it was meant for everybody that does port maintenance on ports that are duplicates. O'Brien has basically fixed the -gnu vs -gpl confusion already, by saying that -gnu is version 7. (I'd have used a stronger wording, but the one that is there make the distinction possible to find.) Eivind.