On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 00:49:24 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > ################## > 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
This concept keeps being put forward from time to time, and it keeps making little sense to me. The "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" is the actual source files, that's the work. A tarball is a way to *transport* and *disseminate* those files, it's not the work, and people do not edit the tarball. A VCS can be used to *record* those modifications, or to *transport* and *disseminate* them, in the same way you could do with a series of patches. But "modifying" the VCS is a by-product of having modified the actual source. Regards, Guillem
