Re: Patches (was Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4)
Chris Waters <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> As others have mentioned, I think this is an EXTREMELY bad time to
> forbid patch-only licenses. And, no disrespect for anyone intended,
> but I have a lot more respect and trust for the opinions of RMS than I
> do for *anyone* in the Debian organization, including myself! If RMS
> is willing to declare the QPL a free license, that's good enough for
Then again, the QPL 0.90 draft is roughly equivalent to the BSD license,
though it does say some strange things about patch requirements to
achieve this end. [For example: take each file and strip out everything
but the required copyright. Make patches. Distribute under required
license. Toss the original sources and patch an empty directory.]
Since the patch requirement here lets you do anything with the
functional parts of the source I think it would even be usable
under the proposed new DFSG.
Too bad the license doesn't apply to anything.