Subject: Re: Open Source -> Closed Source
From: Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:13:51 +0200
Thu, 12 May 2005 14:13:51 +0200
El jue, 12-05-2005 a las 10:30 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull escribió:
> >>>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com> writes:
> 
>     Santiago> On the other hand, the move that you speak about is only
>     Santiago> possible for niche markets. I'm quite sure that if, for
>     Santiago> instance, ghostscript or gcc went proprietary, a bunch
>     Santiago> of people will take it off the point of the last free
>     Santiago> license and keep on with development.
> 
> Ghostscript  is  proprietary, has been for a decade, and AFAIK  still 
> is distributed under the non-free, non-OSD-conforming Aladdin Free
> Public License (at least, that's what my CVS checkout says).  As far
> as I know, nobody has ever bothered to actually do any development
> based on GNU Ghostscript, and as far as I know rather few people even
> use GNU Ghostscript.
> 

I'm using this one, as most linux users, AFAICT:

http://www.cups.org/ghostscript.php (Note in particular: ESP Ghostscript
is maintained as a project on SourceForge and includes developers from
Easy Software Products, Debian, Mandrake Linux, OMNI, Red Hat, SuSE, and
the GIMP-print project.)

http://sourceforge.net/projects/espgs

I have got like 5 updates (using gentoo) in the last months.

> What makes GCC non-proprietary is not the GPL; it's the FSF covenants
> of incorporation and the assignment contracts it has entered into with
> contributors.
> 

I can't understand this explanation.

Regards
-- 
Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com>
High Sierra Technology, SLU


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]