| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:35:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:27 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:13:35PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> >> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files |
| 7 |
> >> >> themselves were not modified - not the commit message. |
| 8 |
> >> > |
| 9 |
> >> > The DCO text is verbatim copies only [1], so I don't think |
| 10 |
> >> > adjusting clauses is legal. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> I copied it from /usr/src/linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches |
| 13 |
> >> which is GPLv2, as far as I can tell. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Luis R. Rodriguez and I spent some time trying to track this down with |
| 16 |
> > the authors while I was factoring the signed-off-by documentation out |
| 17 |
> > into a stand-alone repository [1,2]. There was some debate about |
| 18 |
> > whether the text was copyrightable, but the explicit copyright claim |
| 19 |
> > and license on the Linux Foundation's DCO page [3] settles it for me. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Great to hear that it settles it for you, but as far as I can tell, |
| 22 |
> the Linux Foundation has released it under the GPL and continues to do |
| 23 |
> so to this day. I suppose they can sue me if they don't agree, not |
| 24 |
> that I can see why they would want to. :) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
There's no Signed-off-by on the commits adding the DCO to the Linux |
| 27 |
tree ;). The only information I can find claiming copyright and |
| 28 |
licensing by one of the DCO authors is at |
| 29 |
http://developercertificate.org/. I suppose you could alter the DCO |
| 30 |
and claim it's under a different license, but the Linux Foundation |
| 31 |
lawers wrote the thing, so I think it's more respectful to take them |
| 32 |
at their word or just write your own certificate from scratch. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> >> > Personally, I don't think the maintainer appending their s-o-b to |
| 35 |
> >> > the user's commit is all that important (certainly not worth |
| 36 |
> >> > blowing away the user's signature) when they can just sign and |
| 37 |
> >> > s-o-b an explicit merge commit. |
| 38 |
> >> |
| 39 |
> >> Agree. No need to modify the original commit. |
| 40 |
> > |
| 41 |
> > So the policy in the wiki should be: |
| 42 |
> > |
| 43 |
> > “Don't clobber the user's signature on a commit, even to add your |
| 44 |
> > Signed-off-by. Instead, explicitly merge signed user commits, or |
| 45 |
> > have the user reroll the commit with your tweaks and re-sign it.” |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> I disagree with this. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> I have no objections to keeping the original commit. However, I do |
| 50 |
> object to requiring that the original commit being preserved. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
So, “You don't need to clobber…. Instead, you can explicitly….” Then |
| 53 |
it's clear that clobbering user sigs is allowed, even if it's not very |
| 54 |
nice ;). |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Cheers, |
| 57 |
Trevor |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 61 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives