undefined | Better HN

0 pointstempfile1y ago0 comments

I don't think clause 2b says that, do you perhaps mean clause 2a? In GPLv2 that says:

> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

while in GPLv3 it says

> a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.

Note that git/svn are not always relevant. In particular, it is not uncommon to distribute release code with the .git directory stripped - this does not excuse you from the requirement.

Having said that, I had a quick glance at Linux, and picking a file at random it did have a copyright header, but certainly not one that included a record of every change. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/init/calibrate...

So it doesn't look like this is peculiar to v2. But it does seem like people don't follow the letter of the requirement. I wonder if the FSF has ever clarified this.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

Sophira1y ago· 1 in thread

My understanding is that most projects that are licensed with GPLv2 actually say that they're licensed for GPLv2 "or any later version" (the Linux kernel being a notable exception). So, you could use GPLv3 instead, which would allow you to just say that the work itself has changed, not the individual files.

tempfileOP1y ago

I don't think this is actually a significant difference between GPLv2 and v3. At the bottom of the quoted list of requirements, v2 says:

> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.

It is possible that v3's wording was cleaned up to make it clearer that individual file-level changes were not required. I have no doubt that git history would be considered sufficient metadata provided it was included in a release. We probably will never see a court test the attribution requirement in enough detail to settle this (in other words, it probably doesn't matter)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse