Henning Makholm writes: > Scripsit Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Marco d'Itri writes: > >>> Sure, but the DFSG is not about a license being good or bad. There are >>> plenty of "bad" licenses which are free. > >> Only for a strange definition of "free" (such that some might accuse >> you of wanting to put non-free things into main). > > Licenses with patch clauses are widely considered "bad" even though > they are explicitly free according to the DFSG.
Do you have any particular licenses in mind? I only have about 1450 packages installed on my system, but none of them seem[1] to have that kind of license. The closest are a few packages with files that are (in the case of apt, once were) dual licensed under the QPL and GPL. The claim was that there *are* plenty of bad licenses, which implies actual rather than theoretical existence or use. Michael Poole [1]- Judging just by the output of "grep -i '(patch|change)' */copyright" from /usr/share/doc, and checking context for files that looked like they might be a patch clause. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]