Re: anti-tarball clause and GPL
* Adam Borowski:
> In the light of the currently discussed GR proposal, I wonder if the
> following license clause would be considered DFSG-free and GPL-compatible:
>
> ##################
> I do not consider a flat tarball to be a preferred form for modification.
> Thus, like any non-source form, it must be accompanied by a way to obtain
> the actual form for modification. There are many such ways -- unless you
> distribute the software in highly unusual circumstances, a link to a
> network server suffices; see the text of the GPL for further details.
> ##################
>
> I believe such a statement would be GPL-compatible; rationale:
> * by the 2011 Red Hat kernel sources outcry, it is obvious such a tarball
> is long obsolete
> * a flat tarball deprives the recipient of features of modern VCSes
> * comments giving rationale for a change tend to be written as VCS commit
> messages
> * future forms are not banned: it is conceivable that next week someone
> invents a revolutionary new form that wins over git
>
> Thoughts?
The GPL version 2 already requires that you maintain something like a
ChangeLog:
| 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
| of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
| distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
| above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
|
| a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
| stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
On the other hand, not allowing source distribution as a “flat
tarball” sounds like an additional restriction, which would be
incompatible with the GPL. (Just like parts of glibc used to require
distribution on tapes, only less inconvenient.)
Reply to: