Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Suppose we have a license X that makes use of this rule of DFSG. In > particular the X license gives us only the following permissions with > respect to the source code:
> 1. Permits to distribute and build unmodified copies of the source > of the program. > 2. Permits to distribute "patch files". It is not necessary to > require the distribution of the "patch files" together with the > original source code even though DFSG seams to allow such a > requirement. > 3. Permits to use the "patch files" for the purpose of modifying > the sources of the program at build time. > Suppose that the works A and B are covered by X and C is a combined work > based on A and B. Under these conditions the sources of C can not be > distributed because theyr distribution form should have simultaneously > the form sources_of_A+patches_for_A and sources_of_B+patches_for_B and > this is impossible. (The formal proof of this impossibility is too > abstract, but I hope the following analisys will make it clear.) What is the point of all this again? Even if I buy your analysis, which I don't (it's resting on the assumption that there's some way to phrase the license that disallows a patch to be a derived work of both A and B at the same time, and I don't see where you're getting that), it's irrelevant. The DFSG doesn't require that arbitrary derived works may be made from any two pieces of software in the archive. We have quite a bit of software that is otherwise free which cannot be combined with arbitrary other pieces of software. Consider OpenSSL and any GPL-covered program, for instance. That doesn't make either of them non-free. So I don't understand what you're trying to get at, or what possible relevance this theoretical discussion could have to anything else we're talking about. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
