User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account



Posted Nov 27, 2008 0:52 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (guest, #2330)
In reply to: Changelogs? by ikm
Parent article: An open letter to Evgeniy Polyakov

Many may not know that the GPL requires something like a change log if you modify and distribute a GPL program. From the GPL (v2):

"You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."

The simplest way to meet this requirement is with a standard changelog entry. But even if this often-ignored requirement weren't there, it's good practice to document just what changed.

(Log in to post comments)


Posted Nov 27, 2008 1:04 UTC (Thu) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]

Sure you need to stick in some changelog entries if you're modifying the others' code, but I thought it was a requirement to maintain your own changelogs for every file, including the ones the patch just adds (since DST is mostly a chunk of brand new code, right?) If the original statement was merely about the fact that you need to acknowledge changing the work of others with a brief description of what you've changed there, then that's surely understandable and is of course required.


Posted Nov 27, 2008 13:30 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

So... if that requirement is not met, all rights to use and distribute the GPL'd work are automatically revoked under GPLv2, and can be revoked at the option of the copyright holder under GPLv3? And just slapping a changelog on after the fact does not restore the rights?

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds