Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:04:58PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> It says nothing of the sort. The only thing DFSG 4 says relating to >> patches is that requiring that modifications be patches is acceptable. >> The only thing DFSG 4 says is that "You must be able to distribute >> modified source or source and modification patches". Whether the terms >> attached to those patches are free is up to the rest of the guidelines, >> not DFSG 4. > > That's interesting. My copy says "This is a compromise".
The compromise is that we believe patch clauses are an acceptable means of providing modified source. I can't see any reason to believe that we then hold patch clauses to different standards compared to any other means of providing modified sources. >> I believe that your interpretation of the core values is incorrect. > > I'm sorry to hear that you don't believe forking and code reuse are core > values of Free Software. I don't think there's any point to us arguing > further on that point. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Patch clauses do not prevent forking and code reuse any more than a number of licenses that we accept as free. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
