| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 19/11/14 11:04, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 19/11/14 09:36, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 6 |
>> How does this translate to our situation with many developers |
| 7 |
>> committing to a central repository? Is the latest version of the |
| 8 |
>> tree the "original work", with a collective copyright of all |
| 9 |
>> contributors? Or is each commit a "modified version" of the |
| 10 |
>> previous? I believe that in the first case (distribution of the |
| 11 |
>> original work) modification notices wouldn't be needed at all, |
| 12 |
>> but that in the second case the GPL would require them. |
| 13 |
> The former, I should think. But maybe we should send an email to |
| 14 |
> someone at the FSF or the SFLC. |
| 15 |
I talked to rms about it. Being who he is, he did not make any |
| 16 |
assumptions like we are making. Instead he urged us to contact a |
| 17 |
lawyer with the issue of whether it's an "original work", "modified |
| 18 |
version", or something else entirely. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The good news is that the GPL does not require a ChangeLog either way. |
| 21 |
For a "modified version", denoting the *current version as changed* |
| 22 |
(at all), and denoting *when it was changed* (the date associated with |
| 23 |
git HEAD) is sufficient. |
| 24 |
- -- |
| 25 |
Alexander |
| 26 |
bernalex@g.o |
| 27 |
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander |
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 30 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlRtrOMACgkQRtClrXBQc7Xp2AD+PfwqewaUzQUDsJuB/aLuncGy |
| 33 |
abH0bzjFxXEXCaUVUEYA/3h8iZVBtLzbZsWCR9ZGtIGFKAwaatmpEwyQ2o4AmKuQ |
| 34 |
=BN8W |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives