Re: [gentoo-licenses] The GPL-2, modified works, and ChangeLog files

[Mike Frysinger]

On 19 Nov 2014 09:36, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> The GPL-2 says in clause 2.a) about distribution of modified versions:
>
>     a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
>     stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
>
> Now current plans for the transition to git include dropping of
> ChangeLog files from the tree distributed to users via rsync (and
> presumably also from snapshot tarballs). The question is if the GPL-2
> allows us to do that, or if we have to add ChangeLog files generated
> from the git log.
>
> The GPL's model seems to assume the simple situation that there is
> a single author (= copyright holder) who distributes an "original
> version" of a program, and then another person who modifies it and
> distributes that "modified version" under clause 2).
>
> How does this translate to our situation with many developers
> committing to a central repository? Is the latest version of the tree
> the "original work", with a collective copyright of all contributors?
> Or is each commit a "modified version" of the previous? I believe that
> in the first case (distribution of the original work) modification
> notices wouldn't be needed at all, but that in the second case the GPL
> would require them.

there are a number of GNU projects that are automatically generating ChangeLog 
files from their git history, and none of the scripts they have to do this makes 
any note of this kind.  granted, they usually have FSF copyright assignment in 
place, but that isn't the case for all of them.  i would also note that all 
our files carry Gentoo copyrights only, not specific people.

in general, i've never seen anyone do this nor anyone ask for it (including 
large commercial companies that redistributed).  even projects that fork 
existing ones and modify the files don't put notices (including date stamps 
ffs) in every single one.  how many forks are out there of 
binutils/gcc/gdb/linux ?

reading this more strictly, you could argue that the patch itself is the 
original work and the act of modifying the content after the fact by someone 
else is a derivative work.  that means every edit would require notice.

all in all, it's a non issue for us imo.
-mike