Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > 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.
gnuplot is also under a patch clause license. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
