Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted
> it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included in the DFSG that
> some software important to Debian would have been treated as
> non-free. I think it's also safe to say that we thought that allowing
> that software into Debian was a better idea than excluding it.
According to Branden, it was an attempt to get Qmail into Debian, and
that's treated as non-free anyway.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/07/msg00071.html
> The rationale for modifying the DFSG to include this list would
> probably be that we feel that allowing software with these
> (relatively minor) warts in them would be good for the free
> software community. In part this would be out of respect for
> the FSF and its contributions and decisions.
I have trouble describing the complete prohibition of modifying a
work as a "relatively minor wart". It seems ironic to waive freedom
requirements for the FSF out of respect for its contributions to free
software.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: