From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Jul 9 14:35:22 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mimer.webgiro.com (mimer.webgiro.com [212.209.29.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA0837B669 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 14:35:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abial@webgiro.com) Received: by mimer.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 66) id D51232DC0A; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:40:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 858D27817; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:34:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7874610E17; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:34:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:34:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Andrzej Bialecki To: papowell@astart.com Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues In-Reply-To: <200007092102.OAA21518@h4.private> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 9 Jul 2000 papowell@astart.com wrote: > Let me try to state this as clearly as possible: > > If the FreeBSD project wants to distribute LPRng under the BSD > license, then I will give them a license to distribute it under > the BSD license terms. I would add the following two provisions > in addition to standard BSD License terms: > > A) The copyright and version information must be able to be > B) If modifications are made to this distribution then this must > What is wrong with retaining the ability to display copyright > information from the command line options? What undue burden does > it place on commercial users of FreeBSD? And if they modify the > code, wouldn't it be good Systems Engineering Practice to have > some way to verify that? Patrick, Your LPRng is a good, solid software, and you are very forthcoming with the license issues - I think, based on what you just said, we shouldn't have any license-related objections. However, there are other arguments in this discussion that are valid concerns (things like size, compatibility with our (t)rusty lpd and other OS's lpd, etc..). IMHO, if we (FreeBSD) want to handle this properly, we simply should focus on technical issues, now that the license issues are gone, and make the judgement based on technical merits, not politics. And IMHO importing LPRng offers more benefits than drawbacks (if any). Similar scenarios happened to other, "traditional" (=antiquated) programs - some of them came to the tree from external maintainers that developed newer, enhanced versions (most of the stuff in contrib), some others (like test, csh, ntp) are complete replacements. We could do the same with LPRng. Andrzej Bialecki // WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com) // ------------------------------------------------------------------- // ------ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org -------- // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ ---- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message