* 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.)
