Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a >>suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such >>a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or may not >>be removed in the future; should that be noted as well? > > I believe he has essentially said that he wants to only allow patches, in > order to prevent forking, so I think any approach that he'll accept will > have to use DFSG#4. This summary is intended for the QPL in general, not just for the libcwd case. > (I personally consider the patch element of DFSG#4 bogus. Patch clauses > prevent forking and code reuse almost entirely, both of which are critical, > fundamental elements of Free Software. I tend to suspect that people > using them want the individual benefits of Free Software--of free contributed > work, bug fixes, code review, distribution--without the only reciprocation > of placing the work in the pool of reusable code.) I agree entirely. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature