| 1 |
On 09/26/2018 03:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> Here is another small update of the copyright GLEP, resulting from a |
| 3 |
> recent discussion on IRC. This is not a change of policy, but merely |
| 4 |
> a clarification of the real name requirement: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Traced the language to a commit from 2006, seems to have zero |
| 8 |
open discussion for its legal reasoning, or any specific cited |
| 9 |
model for how or why a person writing their name is valid (I |
| 10 |
can't find any evidence of a legal analysis performed at the |
| 11 |
time, or since) - specifically, language in the LKML commit: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.commits.head/85223 |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
["The DCO does not mean anything if we allow anonymous |
| 16 |
contributors to the kernel. As this is an open source |
| 17 |
project, we need to do everything in the open."] |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This meme (in the original sense of being like a gene, though |
| 20 |
inherited and expressed and mutated by way of memory and idea. |
| 21 |
the modern sense of the word "meme" doesn't resemble the original) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Could benefit from some open legal review. Ironic for multiple |
| 24 |
organizations to express the same sentiment without considering |
| 25 |
the legal intent of a signature: "I have reviewed this, and am |
| 26 |
marking it as such" is far less valid when it is not witnessed |
| 27 |
or authenticated. (as by a notary or officer of the court) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'd like clarification of the origin of the requirement, but |
| 30 |
this is as far as I'll go, publicly. I don't wish to be the |
| 31 |
voice or face of this issue. I don't have the energy or legal |
| 32 |
resources for it. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
- signed by key |
Archives