Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:26:13 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> Cc: papowell@astart.com, drosih@rpi.edu, andrews@technologist.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, nik@FreeBSD.ORG, sheldonh@uunet.co.za, will@almanac.yi.org Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues Message-ID: <200007080626.AAA67301@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2000 22:32:48 EDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007072217210.71063-100000@picnic.mat.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007072217210.71063-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007072217210.71063-100000@picnic.mat.net> Chuck Robey writes: : If we can't get you to release LPRng under a BSD license, and our present : lpd *does* have such a license, then I don't think I can make too good a : case that LPRng is not better than lpd, but I can really easily make a : case that bringing in LPRng is going to hurt an important segment of : FreeBSDers (commercial users of FreeBSD). Not bringing in LPRng isn't : going to hurt much, since a nice port is available via : ports/sysutils/LPRng. : : Can you see this? It's NOT a question of Having/NotHaving LPRng, we'll : have it either way. It's a question of Hurting/NotHurting an important : set of FreeBSD users, without making anyone at all do without LPRng. Actually, I do get the point. The big motivator was lack of a good lpr/lpd maintainer and the difficulty in getting simple fixes audited in lpr/lpd. We now have a maintainer, so that issue is likely to go away. Most of my desire for lprng was based on me wearing my SO hat and saying that for the good of the project you have to accept this. I've since realized that we might get the same goal in other ways. : If you're a commercial user, who (for many reasons) doesn't want to have : to have an on-staff lawyer every time a commit is done, you'd : understand. Trying to give support under conditions where your customers : can change things, or where you couldn't, would be a nightmare too. I understand completely. I work for just such a company. There's a cost of doing business with free software and companies that do this must understand that. The BSD license is easy to understand, but if you want to be sure, you MUST consult a lawyer. Ame is true for any hunk of software you hack on. It is a sad reality of life really. And neither of these situations is changed by importing lprng. However, events have overcome that argument. I don't think lprng will go into the tree. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007080626.AAA67301>