Glenn Maynard writes: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:21:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > > If I'm reusing a function from one project with a patch clause, sure. I > > > can distribute my entire project as a patch against the project whose > > > code I'm reusing. That's hardly reasonable. It also prohibits me from > > > using public CVS for my project, since that would perform distribution > > > of the modified reused code in a form other than a patch against the > > > original. > > > > It is pretty hard for me to think of a function that is usable on its > > own, useful enough to merit reuse in another project, and too large or > > subtle to be rewritten rather than deal with a patch-clause license. > > So you're saying that since it's possible to rewrite code on your own, > patch clause licenses are free? That sounds like an argument that code > reuse isn't really all that important.
I am saying that it is hard for me to imagine a case where reuse of patch-claused software is a major impediment to getting the work done. There are works under patch-clause licenses that are cul-de-sacs in the free software world, and patch-clause licenses should be (and are) generally discouraged. However, unless there is a noticeable uptick in works that use those licenses, I think declaring those works non-free would be a net loss in giving users the ability to freely modify and share software. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
