Re: DFSG2: The patch exception -- edge case
Adam Di Carlo <apharris@burrito.onshore.com> writes:
> Some software, i.e., big lisp programs, can, at start or at runtime,
> read a 'patch' file (i.e., in lisp) which can basically completely
> alter the program. I.e., every single procedure and variable can be
> changed (even quite complex, meta-object classes and the like) at
> runtime.
>
> Suppose the author of a big lisp package stipulates that the source
> is under the GPL, with the caveat that any modification should be
> kept in separate patch files which can be automtically loaded at
> startup (or at any point, actually).
You couldn't use the GPL for this, as it prohibits you from adding any
restrictions that it does not explicitly list. But suppose for the
sake of argument that it were a different license...
> Suppose the author felt she needed to do this in order to manage the
> many various patches for a complex, actively-developed program.
> Morever, the patches may be distributed with the main program,
> provided that they are kept in their own little files in their own
> little area.
To my view this would not be free software, as it makes it hard to
fork it.
If an author wanted this clause to make it easy to manage contributed
changes they could simply ignore any contributions not in this form,
and get the same effect from their own point of view without
preventing anyone else from forking the software.
JOOI, do you have a specific example of a license in mind or is this a
hypothetical case?
> Would this break the patch clause? Functionally, there is no
> difference between patches as separate files and actual patches to
> the original source except for a slight difference in startup times.
It would certainly not be allowed under the most recently posted DFSG2
draft, as the DFSG2 ban on the patch requirement works by the simple
means of not mentioning it as something you're allowed to do.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Reply to: