Hi! 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? Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Latin: meow 4 characters, 4 columns, 4 bytes ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Greek: μεου 4 characters, 4 columns, 8 bytes ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ Runes: ᛗᛖᛟᚹ 4 characters, 4 columns, 12 bytes ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Chinese: 喵 1 character, 2 columns, 3 bytes <-- best!