1 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:43 PM, W. Trevor King <wking@×××××××.us> wrote: |
2 |
> There's no Signed-off-by on the commits adding the DCO to the Linux |
3 |
> tree ;). The only information I can find claiming copyright and |
4 |
> licensing by one of the DCO authors is at |
5 |
> http://developercertificate.org/. I suppose you could alter the DCO |
6 |
> and claim it's under a different license, but the Linux Foundation |
7 |
> lawers wrote the thing, so I think it's more respectful to take them |
8 |
> at their word or just write your own certificate from scratch. |
9 |
|
10 |
The license is declared in /usr/src/linux/COPYING. |
11 |
|
12 |
Or, are you suggesting that it is illegal to redistribute the kernel |
13 |
tarball? The tarball is distributed under the GPL unless otherwise |
14 |
stated, and nothing in that file containing the DCO states otherwise. |
15 |
Certainly the tarball contains no license that only allows unmodified |
16 |
redistribution. |
17 |
|
18 |
The fact that the same text is published multiple times isn't an |
19 |
issue. You can publish code under as many incompatible licenses as |
20 |
you wish. Recipients have to follow the license they received it |
21 |
under, and if they received it under more than one then they basically |
22 |
get to choose. Licenses GIVE rights, they don't take them away. |
23 |
Absent a license you wouldn't be able to redistribute a file |
24 |
unmodified or otherwise. |
25 |
|
26 |
In any case, I don't think it is necessary to actually modify the DCO. |
27 |
I don't believe that it requires redistributing commit messages. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Rich |