tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: ghostscript meta package

"OBATA Akio" <> writes:

> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:19:36 +0900, David Sainty <> 
> wrote:
>> I'm not a big fan of the by-licence selection though, given that it
>> essentially defaults to the less-maintained version, and it's
>> extending the licence functionality to new ground - elsewhere
>> licensing settings don't change the package set on the machine, but
>> here they do. That could be seen as abuse.

I agree with this concern.   My inclination is to keep the choice about
what belongs in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE separate from which version is
preferred, at least in the case of Free licenses that board@ has asked
not be in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE.   Right now these versions are close, but
I suspect as time goes on the GPL3 version will become crufty.  I'd
rather have users building from source have to choose before proceeding.

I think a key question is if we can have a binary metapackage which can
be satisfied with either 9.06 or 9.07+, and have binary packages of both
implementations available.  Handling binaries (and not installing and
running them) of AGPL code does not pose more concerns than (regular)

> Latest GNU Gnostscript (!= GPL Ghostscript, forked one) is 9.06 and
> GPLv3.  But I'm not sure the next GNU Ghostscript release will also be
> changed to AGPL or not though...

Why do you say fork?  It seems ghostscript has been published by the
same entity for a long time, and the AGPL version is the most recent
version published by that entity.


  The original Ghostscript program is maintained by a group of developers
  from Artifex Software Inc. Henry Stiles and Ray Johnston are the main

  GNU Ghostscript is maintained by a team of GNU programmers. The GNU
  version of the software is a distribution of the Ghostscript project
  from Artifex Software. 

This seems to be a simple case of license change by the authors, and I
don't see any evidence of fork.  It looks like the download site
just hasn't caught up.  Looking at the diff from 9.06 to 9.07, the
license change is obvious, and then there are a lot of changes that look
like normal version-to-version changes and improvements (actually the
changes look larger in quantity but similar in kind to what one would

Attachment: pgpe3wYO583Uj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index