| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:05 AM Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 09:54:19AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > The problems are listed in the rationale of GLEP 76. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > With the license currently listed at https://developercertificate.org/ |
| 8 |
> > ("changing is not allowed") nobody would even be allowed to commit the |
| 9 |
> > DCO to a repository under it's own terms. Catch-22. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> And as the Debian developers said, "that's crazy-talk, don't worry about |
| 12 |
> it." Seriously, don't. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Do you have some kind of link to this? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Distributing the licenses is completely legal, but I don't see how |
| 17 |
anybody could make the certifications in the DCO when doing so. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> What company or legal entity has concern with the DCO as-written? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Well, I do, at least as far as license commits go. How could I make |
| 24 |
the certifications in your DCO when committing a license file like the |
| 25 |
GPL? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The text of the upstream DCO says that the file is "covered under an |
| 28 |
appropriate open source license," and the GPL isn't covered under an |
| 29 |
open source license. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Don't get me wrong, per the terms in the GPL it is completely legal to |
| 32 |
redistribute. My problem isn't with redistributing the GPL. My |
| 33 |
problem is with signing off on the DCO when committing the GPL to a |
| 34 |
repository, because I'd be making a statement that isn't true. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
An alternative to this would be to not require a DCO signoff when |
| 37 |
committing license files. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> That's not the only thing that you have changed here, as you state. You |
| 40 |
> changed the wording of the types of licenses (hint, "free software" is |
| 41 |
> not the same as "open source" and has consequences by changing that |
| 42 |
> wording.) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Sure, but our intent is to require the use of a free software license. |
| 45 |
So, the consequences are intentional here. It isn't adequate to |
| 46 |
merely certify that the work is covered by an open source license |
| 47 |
(this would be one of those cases where the needs of the Linux |
| 48 |
Foundation may not be the same as the needs of everybody). |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
The other wording change is in changing how the outline numbering |
| 51 |
works, to separate the three OR clauses from the one AND clause. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Rich |
Archives