On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 02:48:49PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I think this runs into the "patch" issue. It's always been DFSG-ok > for upstream to insist that we distribute *their* code in pristine > unmodified source, and our changes must be in separate patches. I > think that applies just as much to the filenames in the upstream > source as to anything else. Except that the only licenses that have ever taken advantage of the "patch clause" exception to DSFG 4 violate the DFSG in other ways. ...Probably because people don't clearly understand DFSG 4, and they think there are all sorts of restrictions they can place in the license on the back of that exception that we'll accept. They're wrong. The patch clause is doing more harm than good. -- G. Branden Robinson | The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I branden@debian.org | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpAjK_hQaqdd.pgp
Description: PGP signature