Adam Borowski writes: > 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?
Not everyone uses version control. Making requirements on how people make modifications would be a significant change. It would definitely be incompatible with the GPL. Cheers, Walter Landry
