Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> (To be clear, patch clauses are explicitly free, for obvious reasons--though >> as I've said I'd like that to change. I think "you must patch, *and* you >> must permit me to incorporate your patches" goes beyond the DFSG exception.) > > Right, but why? We have a set of freedoms that were chosen based on what > we felt we (and our users) needed. The requirement to provide a liberal > license to upstream is arguably obnoxious and somewhat unfair, but it > doesn't prevent either us or our users from being able to do anything > that we feel we ought to be able to do. The DFSG isn't about wanting > upstream to be nice to us - it's a set of freedoms that we require, and > as long as those freedoms are provided we should be happy.
Yes, it does -- it prevents me from incorporating any patch to which I don't own the copyright. There is no license I can have from anybody which permits me to grant a license like this to the "initial developer" -- granting new licenses is something only the copyright holder can do. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
