[RFC] Policy change for ChangeLog

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 06:05:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu> writes:
> 
> > Personally, I like being able to grep through the changelog in order
> > to see, e.g. whether a particular change made it into a particular
> > release.  I suppose I can always redirect the log/status command into
> > a file and grep it there.
> 
> People who must use and manipulate the sources after they have been
> distributed definitely want ChangeLogs.

I agree with your conclusion.  I think we should distribute a
ChangeLog, but...

> Also, I would note that a ChangeLog satisfies the GPL's
> modification-notice requirement, and an undistributed svn log does
> not.

I don't think this little detail is correct.  A ChangeLog also does
not satisfy that requirement.  

GPL 2a) "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."

[obligatory IANAL] Thus, change notification must be carried by the
changed files themselves.  I realize that a ChangeLog does perform
most (but not all) of the *intended* requirement here, but that
doesn't make it a true satisfaction, and the GNU Coding Standards make
no such claim about ChangeLogs.

(If we only distributed a tarball, there might be *some* room to argue
that the modified files "carry" sufficient notice with them in other
files in the tarball, but that's a stretch IMO.)

It becomes very clear that the ChangeLog is insufficient when we
realize that the GPL must be followed in whatever GPL'd work we
*distribute*.  We are currently distributing the individual GPL'd
files via several public methods.  Yes, the individual files are GPL'd
works; they say so explicitly.

So are we following the GPL?  Yes.  When I creatively modify a GPL'd
file I will add "Copyright (C) 2005 Chris Shoemaker
<c.shoemaker at cox.net>" to the file.  This *does* legally satisfy GPL
2a, although it is far less useful than the corresponding ChangeLog
entry.

Therefore, we should distribute a ChangeLog, even though it does NOT
legally satisfy GPL 2a, because it is useful, and it does well
accomplish the intent of GPL 2a.  And, we should continue to include
notice of change in the changed files, because it DOES legally satisfy
GPL 2a, even though it doesn't well accomplish the intent of same.

There is clearly some room for improvement of the GPL here.

-chris