Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)
Glenn Maynard writes:
> > > (On the same note, the patch exception in DFSG#4 has got to go; patch
> > > clauses prohibit code reuse entirely. Some day ...)
> > Patch clauses only prohibit code reuse if your build system is
> > insufficiently complicated.
> If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure. I
> can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose
> code I'm reusing. That's hardly reasonable. It also prohibits me from
> using public CVS for my project, since that would perform distribution
> of the modified reused code in a form other than a patch against the
It is pretty hard for me to think of a function that is usable on its
own, useful enough to merit reuse in another project, and too large or
subtle to be rewritten rather than deal with a patch-clause license.
If that worst case is as rare as I think it is, is it noticably worse
than the GPL's effective requirement to keep DVDs full of source code
on-hand at expos?