Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> skribis: > Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> writes: > >> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> 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 Ghostscript did not really address our concerns. Thanks, Ludo’.
