Re: Patches (was Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4)

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net> wrote:
> As others have mentioned, I think this is an EXTREMELY bad time to
> forbid patch-only licenses. And, no disrespect for anyone intended,
> but I have a lot more respect and trust for the opinions of RMS than I
> do for *anyone* in the Debian organization, including myself! If RMS
> is willing to declare the QPL a free license, that's good enough for
> me.

Then again, the QPL 0.90 draft is roughly equivalent to the BSD license,
though it does say some strange things about patch requirements to
achieve this end.  [For example: take each file and strip out everything
but the required copyright.  Make patches.  Distribute under required
license.  Toss the original sources and patch an empty directory.]

Since the patch requirement here lets you do anything with the
functional parts of the source I think it would even be usable
under the proposed new DFSG.

Too bad the license doesn't apply to anything.

-- 
Raul