Bug#115883: problems with packaging gnomepq for Debian
retitle 115883 ITP: gnomepq -- The GNOME Printer Queue
Accordingly, I take on the task of packaging gnomepq. =)
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:44:47PM +0100, Petter Nordholm wrote:
> Hi Robert!
> I am glad to hear that you like my small application and would I
> appreciate if you include it in Debian.
> The version you have been using was developed several years ago and I've
> created a new version with some additional features such as:
> * Drag'n'drop functionality. Drop a file on a printer to print it.
> * Tons of bugfixes.
> * Remove printer jobs
> * Change to order of print jobs
> * Disable/enable printers
> * Change printer icons
> * Possibility to add new backends for other printersystems. I guess most
> systems will work since they are often compatible with lpq. But, it is
> possible and very simple to add new systems such as CUPS, ...
> I dont have any problems changing to licens to the bsd model instead.
> I'll get back to you early next week with the updated software.
> Petter Nordholm
> M.Sc. Software Engineer
> Singleton AB
Excellent! Thank you so much for replying... I'm quite surprised the
mail got to you... I just searched for you on Google and CCed any of the
addresses which turned up. Two of them bounced immediately! Seems like
the third got to you though, ;-)
The new version sounds great. I don't know if you've done so yet,, but
you should make the printcap file configurable. I use CUPS myself, and
the lp* compatibility should work with few problems, but I had to
modify the source to read /etc/printcap.cups to get the printer names.
Glad to hear you're willing to clarify the license. I don't know how
interested you are in software licensing, but the license you had on
your software, and the BSD license which is essentially the formal
equivalent, are both non-copyleft licenses. Effectively this means that
your original source code is free to use, modify, redistribute, etc, but
once distributed by you, people are in no way expected to maintain these
For example, I could take the software, change the name and a few
features, and sell it as a commercial precompiled application without
crediting you much, if at all, and without being obliged to make my
modified source available alongside the binaries. The re-use of BSD
licensed code is very common, so it is a good license if you want to
encourage this. A good example is the new OGG Vorbis audio codec, which
has been BSD licensed to make it easy for commercial developers to
implement in their software, to aid acceptance of the format in place
of the patent-encumbered MP3. Some versions of Windows ftp.exe even
contained BSD-licensed code from the University of Berkely itself.
If this lack of guarantee of freedom bothers you, and you would rather
that people's modifications and redistributions are obliged to be free
to use, modify and redistribute too, you should use a copyleft license
which stipulates that the freedoms must be maintained in all
derivitive works. By far the most common of these licenses, probably
used in 90% of free software, is the GNU General Public License, which
can be found and explained at:
Sorry if that was long and boring, but I just thought I'd point out to
you the significance of a non-copyleft license versus a copyleft
license. We Debian people are very up on software licenses because we
only like distributing software that's free. ;-)
Are you planning to create a website somewhere to post new versions?
It'd be a good idea, so you can be linked off the GNOME software map,
freshmeat, etc. If you are in need of hosting (which admittedly is
unlikely =), sourceforge.net offers free project web/cvs/ftp/list/
forum/tracking/etc features to any free software projects.
Looking forward to the new version.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org