> I have been a bit amazed to watch that so much debate on this has happened around the words of preferred form of the work for making modifications to it from GPLv2§3. In particularly, I can't help chuckling at the esoteric level to which many people believe they can read these words.
People do, because it is terribly vague. A programmer is not a lawyer, but unless you can afford one, a programmer has to read some licenses at some point for new software projects. As a programmer, it is an interpretation one could easily fall for. After all, if I make my software available via git and ask people to fork and issue pull requests, isn't that the preferred form of making modifications to the software?
If one would add a clarification stating "the preferred form is a git repository forking from upstream", would this violate the GPL?