On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:38:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > (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. > > Patch clauses, just as a note, must *only* apply to *distribution*; one > which applied to non-distributed copies would be entirely unacceptable. > As such, they are essentially a silly and stupid hoop on distribution. > > It's plausible, even, to construct an 'auto-patchifier' for a revision > control system which allows all the code reuse and forking to be done > normally, and whenever it's distributed, converts it to the stupid 'patch' > form automatically, and converts it back at the recipient's end.
I considered this--that's why I inserted "almost". It's a massive, unreasonable hoop (perhaps "narrow hoop" is more appropriate) to jump through, of course. -- Glenn Maynard
