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

[Jose M Rodriguez]

Eivind Eklund wrote:

>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.
>>>>        
>>>>
<snip/>

>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.
>
>  
>
Get the traballs and read the associated licenses

7.x uses a GNU License
8.x uses a GPL License

They are closer, but not the same.

Also, the tarball contents are very different, apart that gpl-ghostcript 
doesn't have some devices present on the gnu port version.

My plans, right now, are:
- test and solve the remains problems with gpl- (mostly, cups)
- change from -gnu to -gpl
- go for the devel -afpl version (not in the tree).
- deprecate -gnu version when time goes.

Note:
Right now, the gpl version is more recent that the afpl stable version

<snip/>

--
  josemi