-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The "state changes" license condition wording is too vague #847
Comments
I take "state" and "documented" to be general rather than vague 😆 but happy to consider other language that doesn't imply detailing changes. IIRC the GPLv3 requirement is similar in spirit to most other licenses with this condition, with the exception of Artistic-2.0, LPPL-1.3c, and maybe Vim. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The wording of the license condition "state changes" is too vague.
https://choosealicense.com/appendix/#document-changes
Does this mean anyone who modifies material must provide a diff from an unmodified version, provide a list of each change, or simply state when the most recent change was made? My reading of this made me (incorrectly) believe anyone who modifies code must maintain a list of changes made to the code, thereby causing development overhead.
Digging deeper, my understanding is GPLv3 section 5.a requires anyone who makes a modification to state that they had done so and give a relevant date. The wording "state changes" doesn't seem to fit with this requirement. It's not the changes that require documentation but the fact that changes were made (with author and date).
I don't have good knowledge of licenses, but I don't know of any license that requires detailing what changes were made.
I propose one of the following changes to wording of the "state changes" condition:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: