David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > So, the new ghostscript is AGPL'd, and to many people this is a > problem. It seems like a good idea to restore the pre-update non-AGPL > package under a different name. Should this be: That's an unusual program to move to AGPL in terms of what it does (not being focused on web services). But agreed that (more than zero and less than all) will have issues with that. > (1) > AGPL ghostscript 9.07 as print/ghostscript > GPL ghostscript 9.05 as print/ghostscript905 > > (2) > AGPL ghostscript 9.07 as print/ghostscript > GPL ghostscript 9.05 as print/ghostscript-gpl > > (3) > AGPL ghostscript 9.07 as print/ghostscript-agpl > GPL ghostscript 9.05 as print/ghostscript Since the point is to provide clarity to users, I would vote for 2, because then print/ghostscript will match upstream, which is the standard expectation. Alternatively (4) AGPL ghostscript 9.07 as print/ghostscript-agpl GPL ghostscript 9.05 as print/ghostscript-gpl with no package 'ghostscript', so that people will have to make an intentional choice. With (2), though, if they have put AGPL in ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, updating will just work (and then it's the right answer, since it's newer), and if they haven't, they'll get a license fail. We can put a comment there # See also ../ghostscript-gpl, for an older version licensed under # gnu-gpl3. or whatever it is. > (The old alternate name was "ghostscript-gnu", which doesn't seem > useful to resurrect.) agreed.
Description: PGP signature