Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:04:58PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > It's explicitly a compromise; it does not imply that Debian must allow not
> > only patch clauses, but heavily restricted patches, or that restrictions
> > on patches must be regarded without respect to the fact that it's pushing
> > a compromise even further.
>
> It says nothing of the sort. The only thing DFSG 4 says relating to
> patches is that requiring that modifications be patches is acceptable.
> The only thing DFSG 4 says is that "You must be able to distribute
> modified source or source and modification patches". Whether the terms
> attached to those patches are free is up to the rest of the guidelines,
> not DFSG 4.
That's interesting. My copy says "This is a compromise".
> I believe that your interpretation of the core values is incorrect.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't believe forking and code reuse are core
values of Free Software. I don't think there's any point to us arguing
further on that point.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: