On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:33:57 +0100, TJ wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> > 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion > > of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and > > distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 > > above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: > > > a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > > stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. > > > I was recently trying to track down the 'blame' history of some code > that eventually entered the Linux mainline and was stymied by a lack > of traceability. > > That got me to thinking about §2a requirements and git history, and > in particular that almost all changes to kernel code nowadays carry > no change history of their own. The history is contained in the git > repository but anyone receiving a tar-ball does not receive that > history. > > Also, non-mainline tar-ball distributions typically from device > manufacturers typically do not carry any history either. > > Comments? ..file a bug report so Linus and the guys can fix the traceability bug you may have found. ..traceability became much important 10 years ago when Microsoft funded shills like Caldera/The SCO Group launched lawsuits on IBM, Autozone, Chrysler, Novell alleging "stolen Unix code in Linux" but refused to identify it, as Linus and the guys wanted to yank out any stolen code bits and rewrite whatever needed rewriting, which is the honorable one of 2 legally correct ways to fix copyright infringement. http://groklaw.net/ for details. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
