From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 22:42:45 +0200 Message-ID: <87inkr8fui.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170520205523.GA27152@jasmine> <87k25b5h5d.fsf@fastmail.com> <87vaougxzy.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46529) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDGdn-00055h-7N for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:42:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDGdk-0002Nn-3S for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:42:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87vaougxzy.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Sun, 21 May 2017 15:06:41 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Marius Bakke writes: > >> Leo Famulari writes: >> >>> The subject of the two Ghostscripts came up last October, but we didn't >>> really discuss it: >>> >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-10/msg00598.html >>> >>> The canonical Ghostscript is developed by Artifex Software Inc: >>> >>> https://ghostscript.com/ >>> >>> We package GNU Ghostscript, which is a fork of Artifex's Ghostscript: >>> >>> https://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/ >>> >>> Both programs are distributed under the AGPL, as far as I can tell. But >>> Artifex Ghostscript is actively developed, which I think is very >>> important for C software that is designed to handle untrusted input. >> >> Thanks for bringing this up. GNU Ghostscript seemed to go >> mostly-inactive[0] after Artifex changed to AGPL in 2013[1]. The latest >> "upstream" release is 9.21[2], we have 9.14.0 (from 2014!). >> >> I'm in favor of switching to the active fork. > > Me too. In fact, I once tried to package Artifex Ghostscript, but > failed in the attempt to unbundle libraries. Ditto. In the discussion you mentioned above, Didier Link of GNU=C2=A0Ghostscript did not really address our concerns. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.