Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:24:44PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> >> And the reasoning why "Currently there is no such problem" is based >> on the assumption that there are only a few invariant sections >> (except for history, of course), in other words because mostly only >> the FSF uses this option. > > Yes - I am explaining why _currently_ this is not a problem. :-)
This isn't funny. If it's currently not a problem, but can be, the license is non-free. >> > It is no less free than the licenses that directly prohibit compilation >> > works. >> >> Personally, I would regard a license that prohibits compilation of a >> work under that license with other works under the same license, but >> from a different copyright holder, to be non-free. I am not aware of >> any works in Debian under such a license. > > OK, I am going repeat this at least for third time :-) > > Debian acknowledges as free some licenses that require that the > source of all derived works is distributed in the form > original_source+patch. If you have two works covered by such > license then there is no permissible way to distribute the source > of the combined work (unless the combined work is merely > aggregation of independent derivatives of both works). I'm talking about "compilation" in the sense of "combine two or more works into one", not in the sense of "running a compiler" or any other sense it possibly has. And I don't see how a patch clause forbids this. In the simplest case, the second work is arranged to be a patch of the first. If I want to combine two such works, and apply changes, it's getting technically burdensome, but only until someone has written cdps (common Debian patch{clause} system). This is different with invariant sections and the problems they cause when creating combined works or stripped-down works, since they cannot be solved technically. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)