Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 23:55:25 +0100 From: se@zpr.uni-koeln.de (Stefan Esser) To: andreas@klemm.gtn.com (Andreas Klemm) Cc: torstenb@solar.tlk.com (Torsten Blum), fenner@parc.xerox.com, se@freebsd.org, jkh@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Need "a" ghostscript Message-ID: <199611082255.XAA05048@x14.mi.uni-koeln.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961108214537.1098A-100000@klemm.gtn.com>; from Andreas Klemm on Nov 8, 1996 21:57:48 %2B0100 References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961108214537.1098A-100000@klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andreas Klemm writes: > On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Torsten Blum wrote: > > > Andreas Klemm wrote: > > > > > I think we could remove ghostscript 2.6.2 and 3.x port. gs4 seems > > > pretty stable. No need to keep several versions like with tcl/tk. > > > > > > Does somebody have something against removal of gs2 and gs3 port ?! > > > > gs2 has a different licence than gs3 and gs4. > > (gs4 restricts commercial redistribution). > > We should keep at least gs2 (IMHO) > > If we have multiple gs versions around, we should perhaps call one > gs and the others gs<Version> ... > > Since gs 2 is at least less restrictive as the others, gs 2 might > become 'gs' and the others gs3 and gs4. The situation is more complex: There is a 6 month delay, before each new version of Ghostscript is released under GPL. Until then, the program may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial purposes. There is a GPL version of Ghostscript 3, but it did never get the full set of features and bug fixes that wend into the latest non-GPL Ghostscript 3. But it should still be a better base then the version 2, which was only distributed under GPL, IIRC. So I'd opt for making the latest GNU Ghostscript 3.xx the base, and to have Alladin Ghsotscript 4.xx for those, that conform to the licenzing terms ... Regards, STefan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611082255.XAA05048>