[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ironies abound (was Re: GPL v3 draft)

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>>I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch
>>clauses.  There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much
>>of that "don't want my pet package declared non-free" agenda going on,
>>and it seems like an obviously unreasonable hurdle to reuse.  It seems
>>like a compromise whose time has passed.
> I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively
> horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But
> deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our
> standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do
> that.

Why not?  There is an established procedure in place for doing so.
Obviously such a thing should not be done lightly, but that doesn't mean
it cannot be reasonably done at all.

It would be useful, before proposing a GR to do so, to have a list of
all the packages currently in main which would become non-free if this
clause were abolished, as well as any well-known licenses which might be
affected.  Offhand, the only package I know of which is currently in
main and under a patch-clause license is gnuplot, and I don't know of
any well-known DFSG-free licenses (used on more than one project) which
include a patch clause.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: