Re: DFSG2: The patch exception

[Oscar Levi <elf@buici.com>]

>  (i) Provision of original source alongside modifications (discouraged)
> 
>  We would prefer authors not to rely on this exception, as it can
>  significantly impede the ability to reuse and enhance software
>  effectively.

Good.

> 3. Existing software
> 
> Several people have complained that some important existing software
> (notably TeX) has a patch requirement.  How about if we have a special
> grandfather exception for this ?
> 
> Eg,
> 
>  (z) Patch requirement (deprecated)
> 
>  The licence may require that modified source versions be distributed
>  in the form of original source files with `patches' (ie,
>  machine-readable representations of the changes).
> 
>  This exception is only available if the restriction was imposed no
>  later than the 1st of January 1999.  The exception is likely to be
>  removed in a future version of these guidelines.  For rationale, see
>  Appendix B.
> 
> Or possibly without the `likely to be removed' clause, if we can't
> persuade eg Knuth.

This, too, sounds good.  I agree that the patch requirement is a bogus
restriction considering the fact that the generation of a patch
between two trees of sources is nearly trivial with diff.  I can think
of nothing served by a patch requirement except a restriction of
progress.  And progress is what Debian represents, right?