1 |
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 06:47:04PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> >>>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
5 |
> >> This is from the last policy draft: |
6 |
> >> https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml |
7 |
> |
8 |
> > Why redraft the already-useful DCO that is out there for you to use |
9 |
> > as-is: |
10 |
> > http://developercertificate.org/ |
11 |
> |
12 |
> > As you copied the text, be sure to give proper reference to who owns |
13 |
> > the copyright of that text please, you just can't rename it and |
14 |
> > claim it as your own :) |
15 |
> |
16 |
> In fact, Rich *does* give credit to Linux: |
17 |
> "The DCO is based on the |
18 |
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches |
19 |
> Linux Kernel DCO" |
20 |
|
21 |
Credit is nice, but you have to remember copyright issues :) |
22 |
|
23 |
> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the wording |
24 |
> at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO |
25 |
> from the Linux source tree which is distributed under the GPL-2, |
26 |
> instead of the non-free version ("changing it is not allowed") from |
27 |
> developercertificate.org. Their wording is identical except for the |
28 |
> preamble. |
29 |
|
30 |
You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, which |
31 |
is why that wording is there (same wording is in the GPL), so don't |
32 |
think that by pointing at the one in the kernel source tree that changes |
33 |
anything... |
34 |
|
35 |
And I would _strongly_ not recomment changing the wording without |
36 |
consulting with a license lawyer, you can mess things up really quickly |
37 |
by changing stuff. |
38 |
|
39 |
Again, just point to the one we have, use the web site (which better not |
40 |
go away), and copy it locally if you feel it somehow will. |
41 |
|
42 |
thanks, |
43 |
|
44 |
greg k-h |