On 10/7/19 9:00 AM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:41:45PM +0800, Kevin Buckley via lfs-dev wrote:
(one comment)
One thing that I have noted, whilst creating the above:
1) Use of the term "GPL Ghostscript" in the LFS Book
In the BLFS Book, the package section title is just
"ghostscript-9.27", with a lower-case "g" and no "GPL",
and although the term "GPL Ghostscript" is used within
the section, there's no note as to why it's referred to
as "GPL Ghostscript".
Furthermore, that section starts off
Introduction to Ghostscript
Ghostscript is a ...
so again, without the GPL appelation.
Perhaps that section could be given the title
GPL Ghostscript-9.27
Whenever I'm looking at longindex in BLFS (usually when I'm updating
my scripts by working through the BLFS commits in trac) it always
peeves me that ghostscript is indexed as GPL Ghostscript.
There is history for why it was originally labelled as GPL : if we
look at http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs-museum/6.2.0/BLFS-6.2.0/
in section 42 we had both AFPL Ghostscript and ESP Ghostscript. It
appears that the ESP version was a fork of an older version with
some additions.
From memory, the license changed over the years, 2009 (8.70) to
GPLv3+ https://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2009-July/msg02113.html
and in 2014 (9.07+) to AGPL-3+.
So I think we should just call it Ghostscript everywhere.
Thanks for the research Ken. I agree.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
