retitle 115883 ITP: gnomepq -- The GNOME Printer Queue thanks 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. > > Regards > 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 freedoms. 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: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL 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. Regards, Rob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
