The end of the line for GNU Ghostscript [LWN.net]

The end of the line for GNU Ghostscript

Posted May 20, 2003 17:32 UTC (Tue) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]

See

http://www.ghostscript.com/pipermail/gs-devel/2002-December/002261.html

as well as its follow-ups for more information. Hope this helps. :)

The disagreement

Posted May 20, 2003 17:37 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

It has to do with the way ghostscript is developed - new code goes into "AFPL ghostscript," which has a non-free license. You can distribute the source, but you can't sell it. After a year, that code goes into GNU Ghostscript (soon to be "GPL Ghostscript") and is licensed under the GPL. The "censorship" reference has to do with the fact that RMS disallows any mention of AFPL ghostscript in any FSF communications about GNU ghostscript (or anything else). See, for example, this note from RMS prompted by the GNU Ghostscript 5.10 release.

We're looking into this and should have an article in the Weekly Edition this Thursday.

The disagreement

Posted May 20, 2003 17:49 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Hmm, the issue seems pretty cut and dry, but if you are going to run a feature, I have two suggestions:

1) get an FSF response.
2) ask the Ghostscript guys what they think of the MySQL model.

(MySQL are expanding right now, they must be doing pretty well)

Ciaran O'Riordan

The disagreement

Posted May 20, 2003 20:07 UTC (Tue) by raph (guest, #326) [Link]

> ask the Ghostscript guys what they think of the MySQL model.

We like it. In fact, we met with the MySQL folks a few weeks ago, and had a great conversation.

A couple of notes, though. First, MySQL is GPL but not part of the GNU project. Its releases are not constrained by the GNU guidelines.

Second, MySQL's Licensing Policy is the strictest interpretation of the GPL I know of. Basically, for any non-GPL compatible software to integrate with MySQL requires either explicit permission or a commercial license. Many other GPL projects have a significantly looser interpretation.

The disagreement

Posted May 20, 2003 20:49 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

I think it would be easier for a company using the MySQL approach to be a GNU project since there is only one set of releases.

The benefit to Free Software is obviously greater, but as an outsider, it also looks like it would better fit your company's (Artifex's) business model. Your company appears to make it's money through commercial licenses sold to allow third parties integrate your software into their proprietary products.

Ciaran O'Riordan

The end of the line for GNU Ghostscript

Posted May 20, 2003 17:38 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

From the annoucment: "because of disagreements over censorship of the AFPL releases and our development model"

The company (Aladin?) that makes Ghostscript releases the product first under a non-Free license and then a while later under the GNU GPL. The company makes it's money off the non-Free version.

*Maybe* the company wanted to stick an ad for the non-Free version into the Free version? This advertisement would go against the goals of the GNU project. It would be Free Software but it would be encouraging users to use non-Free software.

Ciaran O'Riordan