| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the |
| 5 |
> >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider |
| 6 |
> >> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree which is distributed |
| 7 |
> >> under the GPL-2, instead of the non-free version ("changing it is |
| 8 |
> >> not allowed") from developercertificate.org. Their wording is |
| 9 |
> >> identical except for the preamble. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, |
| 12 |
> > which is why that wording is there (same wording is in the GPL), so |
| 13 |
> > don't think that by pointing at the one in the kernel source tree |
| 14 |
> > that changes anything... |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Sure, the text shouldn't be changed without changing the name. I guess |
| 17 |
> that's common sense, because otherwise it would be confusing. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > And I would _strongly_ not recomment changing the wording without |
| 20 |
> > consulting with a license lawyer, you can mess things up really |
| 21 |
> > quickly by changing stuff. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> So the DCO was devised by a license lawyer? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It was created with one, but that was not the only contributor of it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> TBH, I find it less than optimal. It is an enumeration with all its |
| 28 |
> items at equal level, but its meaning is "I certify ((a || b || c) && |
| 29 |
> d)". That is, structure doesn't follow contents there, and at first |
| 30 |
> glance the "or" (or its absence) at the end of each item can be easily |
| 31 |
> missed. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
See, you have to be careful and read the whole thing, words can be |
| 34 |
tricky :) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
good luck! |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
greg k-h |
Archives