On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted > it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included in the DFSG that > some software important to Debian would have been treated as > non-free. I think it's also safe to say that we thought that allowing > that software into Debian was a better idea than excluding it.
According to Branden, it was an attempt to get Qmail into Debian, and that's treated as non-free anyway. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/07/msg00071.html > The rationale for modifying the DFSG to include this list would > probably be that we feel that allowing software with these > (relatively minor) warts in them would be good for the free > software community. In part this would be out of respect for > the FSF and its contributions and decisions. I have trouble describing the complete prohibition of modifying a work as a "relatively minor wart". It seems ironic to waive freedom requirements for the FSF out of respect for its contributions to free software. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]