| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> The last draft DCO was: |
| 5 |
>> Gentoo DCO 1.0 By making a contribution to this project, I certify |
| 6 |
>> that: (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I |
| 7 |
>> have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in |
| 8 |
>> the file; or (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to |
| 9 |
>> the best of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source |
| 10 |
>> license and I have the right under that license to submit that work |
| 11 |
>> with modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under |
| 12 |
>> the same open source license (unless I am permitted to submit under a |
| 13 |
>> different license), as indicated in the file; or (c) The contribution |
| 14 |
>> was provided directly to me by some other person who certified (a), |
| 15 |
>> (b) or (c) and I have not modified it. (d) I understand and agree that |
| 16 |
>> this project and the contribution are public and that a record of the |
| 17 |
>> contribution (including all personal information I submit with it, |
| 18 |
>> including my sign-off) is maintained indefinitely and may be |
| 19 |
>> redistributed consistent with this project or the open source |
| 20 |
>> license(s) involved. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> This is from the last policy draft: |
| 23 |
>> https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Why redraft the already-useful DCO that is out there for you to use |
| 26 |
> as-is: |
| 27 |
> http://developercertificate.org/ |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
To be honest I don't remember. The last time I touched it was years |
| 30 |
ago and maybe there was a reason to fork it at the time, but I can't |
| 31 |
see a reason for it now. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> As you copied the text, be sure to give proper reference to who owns the |
| 35 |
> copyright of that text please, you just can't rename it and claim it as |
| 36 |
> your own :) |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Makes sense. I'd suggest copying it into the policy and attributing |
| 40 |
it vs just incorporating it by reference, since the original might go |
| 41 |
away (though we've already demonstrated that our own guidexml has not |
| 42 |
lasted as long as that hosted text file). |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
Rich |
Archives