TJ wrote on Saturday, 10 August:
> Also, non-mainline tar-ball distributions typically from device
> manufacturers typically do not carry any history either.
I agree with you that there are a lot of GPLv2§2(a) GPL violations on
Linux out there. But, they are so much less problematic than the
rampant GPLv2§3 violations, it seems sill to pursue these as a priority.
However, with respect to the issue of Git logs:
> The history is contained in the git repository but anyone receiving a
> tar-ball does not receive that history.
Note that unlike source code, where GPL requires "preferred form of the
work for making modifications to it", there is no "preferred form"
language regarding GPLv2§2(a). Thus, it'd be difficult to argue
non-compliance if the entity doing redistribution just list of changes
and dates in a text file.
I wrote a blog post on the issue a while back, when Red Hat changed the
way it handled its GPLv2§2(a) compliance on Linux:
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/03/11/linux-red-hat-gpl.html
--
-- bkuhn
