[Gs-devel] Bug #224957 and LyX
moz at compsoc.man.ac.uk
Tue Nov 27 19:52:29 PST 2001
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:09:03PM -0800, Ray Johnston wrote:
> Since this bug is closed, I assume that it was fixed in 7.03 or before.
So it seems.
> In general the policy is that the GPL version of Ghostscript lags by
> one year/one major release from the AFPL and commercially licensed
> versions of Ghostscript. Since >95% of the bug fixing, development and
> support is funded from Ghostscript commercial licensees, maintenance
> and bug fixing of the GPL version is not promised nor provided very
I understand this. What is disappointing is that I reported the initial
bug that caused whoever to write the patch during 6.50, and it was not
included in 6.51 or 6.52, which were released later. I see from your
above statement that this fix was intentionally withheld from 6.5x.
I wasn't aware that the bug response time for the free version was
at least one year. I had assumed it was usually new features etc. that
was withheld from the free version :(
Thankfully the next version of LyX won't use ghostscript for rendering
> Is there some reason you cannot use the free-of-charge AFPL 7.03
> version? Unless you are producing a commercial GPL product, you
> can probably use the AFPL licensed version.
This is fine for individual users who are able to upgrade.
> I looked at the bug report and there seems to be a patch suggested.
> Since GPL Ghostscript is provided in full source, why can't you just
> apply the patch? If the patch doesn't work or if 7.03 still has this
> bug, then please let us know.
I /personally/ can do that. It's LyX users I'm worried about - not all of
them can upgrade from the distribution-supplied developers. In particular
free operating systems versions will have this bug.
I suppose some advocacy for Linux distributions is necessary.
"By the way, it's not binaries, it's Perl code. Sometimes they look confusingly
- Pavel Roskin
More information about the gs-devel