| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. |
| 2 |
<phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 25/10/2016 01:03, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>> As long as you have their permission to change the copyright notice. |
| 5 |
>> You cannot currently commit anything with a different copyright notice |
| 6 |
>> to gentoo.git, and you cannot legally change it without permission. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> How should that permission be documented? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Is a statement the original author consents sufficient? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I suspect that the DCO is probably sufficient under the proposed new |
| 14 |
policy. If the Linux Foundation can stick code written by full-time |
| 15 |
employees of the likes of Oracle into their repository with nothing |
| 16 |
more than a Signed-off-by saying that whoever contributed it is sure |
| 17 |
it is fine, we should probably consider that this ought to be good |
| 18 |
enough for that. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Reading the DCO clauses b/c are designed to cover code from 3rd parties. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If you're asking about the current policy, I doubt we have anything so |
| 23 |
formal in writing (which was one of the reasons I started the draft of |
| 24 |
the new policy). I'd suggest working with the license team or the |
| 25 |
Trustees before bringing any code of questionable copyright status |
| 26 |
into the tree. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives