Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ghostscript Leaves GNU

Posted by timothy on from the that's-a-shame dept.

commanderfoxtrot writes "Ghostscript 7.07 has been released. However, this is the last GNU release. They will continue to make releases under the GNU GPL, but because of disagreements over censorship of the AFPL releases and the development model in the GNU release their development process has become incompatible with the goals of the GNU project as interpreted by Richard Stallman."

8 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Have to side with the GNU folks here. by zulux · · Score: 3, Informative

    As I understand it - it's dual licensed in the same sort of way as MySQL is. There's the GPL version and a version you can buy to embed in your Closed-Source-DRM-Widget-2003-XP that you've always wanted to make.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

  2. Re:Have to side with the GNU folks here. by raph · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mmm, nothing like being slashdotted. I'll try to comment on some factual points, though.

    There is no "Artifex Public License". There is the AFPL, or "Aladdin Free Public License," but we've never claimed this to be open-source, as it's not consistent with the Open Source Definition.

    Our decision separate from the GNU name has no effect on the freedoms guaranteed to our users. We've always done a GPL release within a year of the AFPL release, and will continue to do so.

    The text quoted above correctly describes the AFPL versions of Ghostscript - commercial distribution is not allowed. However, commercial Linux distributions do of course distribute the GPL version.

    --

    LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs

  3. Re:Have to side with the GNU folks here. by matthewn · · Score: 4, Informative
    Whoever scored this "Informative" needs a poke from the cluestick.

    The Artifex license is not the point of contention, here. The Free version of Ghostscript is (and I believe always has been) GPLed. For more on the actual disagreement, see here (and its followups): http://www.ghostscript.com/pipermail/gs-devel/2002 -December/002261.html

  4. Re:Have to side with the GNU folks here. by Otter · · Score: 4, Informative
    Both of you guys are completely missing what the issue is -- a product offered under the GPL is not necessarily a GNU project.

    There's no problem mentioning non-free software in the README for a GPL'd project, and the Ghostscript guys will continue to do so. Stallman doesn't want official GNU projects doing that, so Ghostscript is leaving GNU.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  5. Re:Have to side with the GNU folks here. by DustMagnet · · Score: 4, Informative
    The link you mention talks about changes to the GNU coding guidelines, I suspect this section: References to Non-Free Software and Documentation is the problem.

    It starts, "A GNU program should not recommend use of any non-free program."

    I've seen many GPL programs that don't live up to that rule.

    --
    'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  6. Re:Have to side with the GNU folks here. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Informative

    And those GPL programs are not a part of the GNU project. The GPL does not require that you follow the GNU coding guidelines.

    Am I being trolled?

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  7. Re:Imagine that by aspargillus · · Score: 3, Informative
    RMS seems to have stopped contributing anything useful himself and gone off into full-time-ideology mode. (Does he still write code these days? HURD? What? Anything anyone *uses*?)
    Actually, he does. I filed a bug report about Emacs and he fixed it himself.
    The FSF as an institution we no longer need, and the reason we no longer need them is because (though RMS does not realise it yet) they were successful.
    How successful was the FSF really? There is a crucial difference between open source and free software. It seems to me that people fail to see that more and more. This doesn't mean that one is necessarily better than the other. And ranting usually does not make people realise the difference between open source and free either.

    So as a political institution, the FSF wasn't all that successful IMHO. Others seem to have taken over most of the civil rights department anyway (e.g. EFF).

  8. Re:Imagine that by Quill_28 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have read the GPL manifesto let's see what it says:

    "What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying onesare banned."

    "Proprietary software is antisocial, so developing it is wrong. In most cases, the user of proprietary software is expected to promise not to
    share with anyone else. It's wrong to make that agreement, wrong to keep it if you have made it, and especially wrong to lure someone else into making such a promise. Using part of the proceeds of this antisocial activity for a worthy cause cannot justify it."

    There's plenty more.