Re: anti-tarball clause and GPL
El 24/7/19 a les 22:28, Florian Weimer ha escrit:
> * 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.)
Actually, the GPL only mandates stating *who* made changes and *when*,
but not *what* changed. As I see, just adding something like "Modified
by John Doe on 2019.07.25" on the comment header where the GPL copyright
notice lies would suffice.
OTOH, some CVS systems may misattribute authorship if the person pushing
the code to the exportable tree version is not the same who actually
originally wrote the code on a private trunk tree: although Git makes a
difference between author and commiter, Subversion does not.
Reply to: