Re: Anton's amendment

[Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> wrote:
> I didn't mean one specific license, but the requirement of DFSG:
> 
>    The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
>    modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of
>    "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the
>    program at build time.
> 
> So the license may require the distribution as original_source+patch_file.

If the license didn't also allow the distribution of the patch files
independently, it's unlikely that we'd consider it free. If you actually
have a single real license that has the requirement that you're
hypothesising, then please point at it. Otherwise, it seems entirely
practical to produce works that are derived from two separate
patch-clause licensed works.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.vote@srcf.ucam.org