1 |
> Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO from the Linux source |
2 |
> tree which is distributed under the GPL-2 |
3 |
|
4 |
I highly doubt that the DCO in the readme is licensed under GPL-2. There |
5 |
is no readme/header, or other indicator stating this. Not everything in |
6 |
the linux repository falls under GPL-2. |
7 |
|
8 |
Thus, we simply blatantly violate the distribution terms: |
9 |
|
10 |
»Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this |
11 |
license document, but changing it is not allowed.« |
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
Best, |
16 |
Matthias |