Re: DFSG2: The patch exception
> (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
> 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 ?
> (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?