Re: DFSG - the patch clause is harmful (was Re: Draft new DFSG)
>
> Hi *,
>
> while I agree on the spirit of what Ian said and I think a
> license that uses the patch clause isn't a very good one, I still
> don't think we should rule it out. Some big pieces of free software
> depend on it. TeX was here long time before Debian or even Linux and
> IS free software after all. The problem is that you can have different
> motivations to exploit the patch clause (I think the reasons of
> prof. Knuth are pretty good ones) and the difficulty is discerning
> the "bad" guys from the "good" ones.
Are you really sure? As far as I know, one _is_ allowed to
distribute a modified TeX (even binaries, and sell them), as long
as one doesn't call it TeX.
So, as far as I know, TeX doesn't make _any_ use of the patch clause.
> You can do that. Distribution and archives format is independent from
> source integrity.
Not if you make full use of the patch clause. Some authors distribute
MD5 sums of the original archive, and demand that however the source
is distributed, the MD5 sum must match.
> Federico Di Gregorio | / mailto:fog@debian.org
> Debian developer! | / -1 http://pcamb6.irfmn.mnegri.it/~fog
> *-=$< ;-P TeX Winzard? |/ http://www.debian.org
Except for copyrights:).
joost witteveen
Reply to: