Why do we have both ghostscript-gpl and ghostscript-gnu?

[Eivind Eklund]

On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 11:57:12AM +0100, Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> Eivind Eklund wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 09:20:41AM +0100, Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> >>David O'Brien wrote:
> >>>What's the difference between ghostscript-gpl and ghostscript-gnu?  A
> >>>diff of their Makefile's doesn't make it any clearer.
> >>Versions.
> >>It was after a change in licence from the originator.
> >
> >According to the pkg-descr, these should both be the same (the GNU GPL).
> 
> No. The originator licenses are different. go there for answers.

The web page (which is the same) indicate that both are under the
GPL, and that the -gpl (8.0) version if based on AFPL ghostscript
(which is under a different license).  This is the way the AFPL work
has traditionally been done; make AFPL ghostscript available under
the AFPL license, and then a year or so later make the same sources
available under the GPL.

If there is a license issue, I'd appreciate if you could give better
references - I consider these things to be important to both understand
and document.

> >>-gnu must remain at 7.x and unmaintained.
> >>-gpl is the new 8.x source distribution.
> >
> >Please add this information to pkg-descr.
> >
> >In general, whenever somebody copy a port - MAKE SURE BOTH pkg-descr FILES
> >DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENCES.  (This is a general plea - we've got maybe a 
> >hundred
> >duplicates, and they're annoying.)
>
> Will work, time permiting, but the original repocopy/patch is not mine.

Note: This wasn't specifically meant for you - it was meant for everybody
that does port maintenance on ports that are duplicates.

O'Brien has basically fixed the -gnu vs -gpl confusion already, by saying
that -gnu is version 7.  (I'd have used a stronger wording, but the one that
is there make the distinction possible to find.)

Eivind.