| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:56:58PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> In any case, I don't think it is necessary to actually modify the DCO. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ah, good. Then the verbatim copy license is sufficient, and we don't |
| 5 |
need to decide if the GPLv2 with Linus' exception applies. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> I don't believe that it requires redistributing commit messages. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I don't either, it just means that you *can* sign the DCO for a commit |
| 10 |
that you got from someone who's also signed the DCO for that commit. |
| 11 |
We just went down this licensing track because of: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 14 |
> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files |
| 15 |
> themselves were not modified - not the commit message. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I thought that sounded like you were suggesting a modification to the |
| 18 |
DCO, so I pointed out that I don't think that's legal. If you were |
| 19 |
just suggesting some “we interpret clause (c) to mean …” comment on |
| 20 |
the wiki or somewhere else, that clearly is legal, but I don't see the |
| 21 |
point. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Cheers, |
| 24 |
Trevor |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 28 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives