Greg KH wrote: > Just use git history, we have it, why ignore it? How do we reconcile the "keep intact all the notices" requirement with "the info is in the Git history"? Specifically: Fontana and I are both worried about downstream users and their susceptibility to license compliance infractions. GPLv2 says: "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License". >From my perspective, I'd prefer if GPLv2 said instead something like: "ensure that downstream recipients are informed of the all notices that referred to this License and are able to request them somehow". But it doesn't, and we can't change the text of GPLv2 (obviously). I suspect that's one reason why LF's SPDX project advises the text that John kindly brought to our attention. Linux is not (usually) distributed with its full Git history passed along for the distribution ride; i.e., most Linux distribution recipients *don't* receive a copy to the Git repository with the copy of Linux they receive. The requirement to keep the notices intact is an inconvenient truth we must deal with before we move Thomas' patches upstream. -- Bradley M. Kuhn Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
