I used the "one line" to give a minimal example of my concern. The project in question has included 2-4 files with minor changes from GNU Octave, which is GPLv3

I used the "one line" to give a minimal example of my concern. The project in question has included 2-4 files with minor changes from GNU Octave, which is GPLv3, in order to patch around bugs and version differences within the Octave codebase. It is scientifically essential that I document the path by which the project reached its current form in order to fully document the thinking and analysis that led to final result. Thus, the entire repository history must be distributed with the project. From a time-investment perspective, finding and patching the Octave bugs comprised < 0.1% of the decade-scale project. It'd probably take me a day to excise the Octave code, package it into a standalone "ISL's wonky Octave patches" repo and license the changes GPLv3, and I'm happy to do so. Octave has already patched some of the relevant changes ( see http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?39177 http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?39177 for an example ). I must, however, retain the repository's development tree. So, if I distribute GPL code in a project's history as documentation, but not in the final version, am I required to license my life's work as GPL, and not BSD?