[RFC] Policy change for ChangeLog

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker at cox.net> writes:

> 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."

This is technically true, but the point is of course the *substance*
of the requirement.

Distributing a ChangeLog at least meets the substance of the
requirement, if it has a technical inadequacy.  Distributing *nothing*
is clearly wrong.

> 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.

The GPL applies to the program as a whole, not to individual files.
It does not matter that people can down load the files one at a time
if they wish.

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

I think there is general agreement that 2a is problematic, and at one
point, back when I worked for the FSF, it was a low priority back
burner issue for some future GPL improvement.