Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with GitHub Pull Requests the easy way

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
>
> I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux
> kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted
> otherwise.
>

Stepping back, I'd just like to comment that while I hold an opinion
on this that is likely different from gregkh, and possibly the Linux
Foundation, I suspect this is going to be moot since as far as I can
tell we aren't modifying the DCO and don't really think we need to.
So, it is probably simpler to avoid controversy by just incorporating
it by reference under their original name, which is certainly the
intention of the Linux Foundation in promoting it.

I think it is an interesting discussion/debate as to whether the Linux
Foundation has or hasn't effectively released the DCO under the GPL
with no further restrictions.  However, I don't think it ultimately is
going to drive what we do.  So, we can just have our private opinions
here, and I do get Greg's arguments (and I acknowledge that he is a
bit of an expert in this space).

I'll just note that tempest in a teapot actually drives home the
importance of explicit copyright and license notices, since it is the
absence of any such notice in this file that is in part driving this
controversy.  Some of the potential ambiguities with our own current
policy could create similar issues, and they have in fact gotten
people upset when code was brought into a Gentoo repository without a
good policy on how to handle the copyright notices.

Authorship and ownership matter to people.  A good copyright policy is
about respecting the rights of others as much as preserving our own.

(And, as always, everything above is just my personal opinion...)

-- 
Rich