On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a > suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such > a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or may not > be removed in the future; should that be noted as well?
I believe he has essentially said that he wants to only allow patches, in order to prevent forking, so I think any approach that he'll accept will have to use DFSG#4. (I personally consider the patch element of DFSG#4 bogus. Patch clauses prevent forking and code reuse almost entirely, both of which are critical, fundamental elements of Free Software. I tend to suspect that people using them want the individual benefits of Free Software--of free contributed work, bug fixes, code review, distribution--without the only reciprocation of placing the work in the pool of reusable code.) -- Glenn Maynard
