Re: ghostscript & agpl

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> writes:

> 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

My vote is (3). If not (3) then (4).


-- 
BECHA...
   CKOPO CE3OH...