On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 03:10:49PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:43:35PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > The license of work 1 requires you to distribute the sources of the > > > combined work in the form original_work_1+patch_for_work_1. In the > > > same time the sources of the combined work should be distributed in > > > the form original_work_2+patch_for_work_2. > > What license do you believe work 1 to be under? Most patch clauses do > > nothing to forbid this. > 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. Do I understand correctly that you are now arguing that the interpretation of the DFSG as *not* requiring permission to make arbitrary modifications by arguing that some other hypothetical license that we've never seen and never had an opportunity to decide on the freeness of as a community *also* passes a strict literal reading of the DFSG? How is this at all productive? The pervailing sentiment on debian-legal (and, TTBOMK, among the ftp team) is *not* "if there is at least one way the license passes the letter of the DFSG, it must be ok for main", so I don't see how providing your own interpretation of the DFSG that allows a hypothetical license Debian has never considered to pass the patch clause really does anything to support your thesis. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature