Re: anti-tarball clause and GPL

[Gerardo Ballabio <gerardo.ballabio@gmail.com>]

(sorry for breaking the thread, I still haven't sorted that out)

> ##################
> 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 seem to gather from the discussion that the intended meaning of this
clause is to require that some kind of metadata must be included.

I'd argue that this is the same concept as the "GFDL with invariant
sections", i.e., "whenever you redistribute this work, or part of this
work, you must include this specific piece". I believe Debian agreed
that this kind of requirement makes a license non-free.

Gerardo