> No one ever responded to this. Does anyone have any opinions? The
> only opinion that's ever been expressed is that Richard said he
> thought nmh shouldn't be released under the GPL.
So, here is a little-known and commonly ignored provision of the GPL
which I find objectionable:
a. You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
In other words, if you are not the copyright holder of a file, you
must maintain version history information within the file itself.
Even if you're maintaining the source code in CVS or if you have a
separate ChangeLog file, you still have to include "the date of any
change" in the file itself.
That might jive with how some people like to maintain code, but I sure
find it annoying that there is a legal requirement for it in the
license.
(I have no strong opinion on the usual GPL vs. BSD philosophical
question of whether a free software license should allow derivative
works to be proprietary. I favor the more laissez-faire approach, but
I recognize the arguments on both sides.)
