Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> >> Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor >> >> technical awkwardnesses. >> > >> >Patch clauses are not a "minor technical awkwardnesses"; they are a major, >> >onerous hurdle to free software development. They would be clearly and >> >obviously (to me) non-free, without the special, explicit exception in >> >DFSG#4. >> >> So why are they free? "Because DFSG #4 says so" is answering an entirely >> different question. > > My opinion is that they are not, and DFSG#4 is a bug. I know that I'm > not the only person who would like to see that exception removed, though > I'm not in a position to do anything about that.
I'd also love to see it removed, and agree that it's a bug -- but I think the *first* step is getting critical patch-clause software out of main, only to be followed by the GR to remove the wart on DFSG#4 which, by that time, nothing important will be using anyway. Oh paranoid lurkers, pay heed: I mean "getting ... out of main" by gradual replacement with identical Free equivalents, either by relicensing or the evolution of the world dominating ninja software movement. The really hard part is going to be tracking down coherent licenses for TeX, Metafont, and the CM fonts, and figuring out a way to replace patch-clause only bits with Free functional equivalents. There's nothing else with a patch clause that really worries me. The few QPL packages will have come around long before then -- Debian doesn't even distribute Qt under the QPL -- and the DJB software isn't going to be Free anyway. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
