Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 01:04:58PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 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".
The compromise is that we believe patch clauses are an acceptable means
of providing modified source. I can't see any reason to believe that we
then hold patch clauses to different standards compared to any other
means of providing modified sources.
>> 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.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Patch clauses do not prevent forking and code reuse any more than a
number of licenses that we accept as free.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: