-
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
-
I don't think clause 2b says that, do you perhaps mean clause 2a? In GPLv2 that says:
> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
while in GPLv3 it says
> a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
Note that git/svn are not always relevant. In particular, it is not uncommon to distribute release code with the .git directory stripped - this does not excuse you from the requirement.
Having said that, I had a quick glance at Linux, and picking a file at random it did have a copyright header, but certainly not one that included a record of every change. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/init/calibrate...
So it doesn't look like this is peculiar to v2. But it does seem like people don't follow the letter of the requirement. I wonder if the FSF has ever clarified this.
-
Ideally, this would follow the format of reuse.software so that there's a machine-readable standard for these: https://reuse.software
I'm working on tooling that involves automated reading of this info, and it's a lot easier if the tools don't have to do fuzzier matching.