| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?" |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under |
| 8 |
trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the |
| 9 |
"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC |
| 10 |
LICENSE." The former has far more trademark protection than the |
| 11 |
latter. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> which |
| 14 |
> is why that wording is there (same wording is in the GPL), so don't |
| 15 |
> think that by pointing at the one in the kernel source tree that changes |
| 16 |
> anything... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The Linux Foundation published a version of their DCO under the GPL, |
| 19 |
which we would of course abide by. The fact that they published it |
| 20 |
elsewhere with a different license doesn't mean that we can't re-use |
| 21 |
the version published under the GPL. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If the FSF published the GPL under the GPL then people would be free |
| 24 |
to redistribute modified versions of it as well. I don't think they |
| 25 |
would disagree with that. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> And I would _strongly_ not recomment changing the wording without |
| 28 |
> consulting with a license lawyer, you can mess things up really quickly |
| 29 |
> by changing stuff. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
No argument there. I don't think we're actually changing anything at |
| 32 |
the moment. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If we aren't changing anything that does raise the question of why not |
| 35 |
just use the Linux DCO, v1.1 or whatever it is at, incorporated by |
| 36 |
reference. I do think we have the legal right to fork it since it was |
| 37 |
effectively published by the Linux Foundation under the GPL, but that |
| 38 |
doesn't require us to fork it. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Rich |
Archives