3 ms·
My understanding is that most projects that are licensed with GPLv2 actually say that they're licensed for GPLv2 "or any later version" (the Linux kernel being
by Sophira 2y ago
My understanding is that most projects that are licensed with GPLv2 actually say that they're licensed for GPLv2 "or any later version" (the Linux kernel being a notable exception). So, you could use GPLv3 instead, which would allow you to just say that the work itself has changed, not the individual files.
- tempfile 2y agoI don't think this is actually a significant difference between GPLv2 and v3. At the bottom of the quoted list of requirements, v2 says: > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. It is possible that v3's wording was cleaned up to make it clearer that individual file-level changes were not required. I have no doubt that git history would be considered sufficient metadata provided it was included in a release. We probably will never see a court test the attribution requirement in enough detail to settle this (in other words, it probably doesn't matter)