Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I didn't mean one specific license, but the requirement of DFSG: > > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in > modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of > "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the > program at build time. > > So the license may require the distribution as original_source+patch_file.
If the license didn't also allow the distribution of the patch files independently, it's unlikely that we'd consider it free. If you actually have a single real license that has the requirement that you're hypothesising, then please point at it. Otherwise, it seems entirely practical to produce works that are derived from two separate patch-clause licensed works. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
