| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:12:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > No change intended. This is what happens when you send a thirty second |
| 4 |
> > follow-up to a policy formed over two weeks, and then step away to eat... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> So, clarification now that I'm back at a keyboard... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> DCO is mandatory, and is simply a declaration that the committer has |
| 9 |
> checked and the new code is distributed under the license chosen for |
| 10 |
> the project (see original email for details, but generally |
| 11 |
> GPL/BSD/etc). The Linux kernel is the main model for this. Since |
| 12 |
> Gentoo is not always being assigned copyright we need to have a clear |
| 13 |
> declaration that the code is available under a suitable free license |
| 14 |
> so that we can further distribute it. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> FLA is optional, and is essentially a copyright assignment (or |
| 17 |
> reasonable facsimile in certain jurisdictions designed by the FSFe). |
| 18 |
> KDE is the main model for this. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> But, to whatever extent that anything I just wrote disagrees with the |
| 21 |
> original email, just read the original email. The original email was |
| 22 |
> carefully proofread by the Trustees, the rest is just |
| 23 |
> discussion/reminders/etc. The final policy will be even more |
| 24 |
> carefully reviewed. The whole bit about mandatory copyright |
| 25 |
> assignment was dropped after the last round of discussion for all the |
| 26 |
> reasons that have just been rehashed... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ok, good, that's why I didn't object to the first email, only to this |
| 29 |
one which seemed to say something else, so I assumed it was I who |
| 30 |
misread the first version. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Nevermind then, sorry for the noise :) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
greg k-h |
Archives