Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also don't understand why anyone would actually want to defend patch > clauses. There are very few of them left, so I don't think there's much > of that "don't want my pet package declared non-free" agenda going on, > and it seems like an obviously unreasonable hurdle to reuse. It seems > like a compromise whose time has passed.
I'm not going to defend patch clauses. I think they're massively horrible things, and the world would be a better place without them. But deciding that they're not free any more would involve altering our standards of freedom, and I don't see any way that we can reasonably do that. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
