1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Greg KH wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> And I'm dragging this back to -core, as I'm not on -project, so my |
4 |
> responses are not even going there, and you started this on -core. |
5 |
|
6 |
Nope, I started the thread on -project on 2018-05-30: |
7 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/b1d92fc4275c15a052cf27bb2a5d75dd |
8 |
I cross-posted to -core once (on 2018-06-04) for wider audience, |
9 |
because I had received only a handful of replies by then. |
10 |
|
11 |
Otherwise, there is no reason why this discussion should take place in |
12 |
private, so it is off-topic in -core. |
13 |
|
14 |
>> With the license currently listed at https://developercertificate.org/ |
15 |
>> ("changing is not allowed") nobody would even be allowed to commit |
16 |
>> the DCO to a repository under it's own terms. Catch-22. |
17 |
|
18 |
> And as the Debian developers said, "that's crazy-talk, don't worry |
19 |
> about it." Seriously, don't. |
20 |
|
21 |
If anyone worries about non-free files in their repositories, then |
22 |
it's Debian. Certainly much more than we do. |
23 |
|
24 |
Also, encouraging people to falsely certify things (and "don't worry |
25 |
about it") is exactly what we want to avoid. If there is a S-o-b line |
26 |
included with a commit, then there must not be any doubt that this |
27 |
commit conforms to the wording of the certificate. If we allow people |
28 |
to commit non-free files and certify them under the Linux DCO 1.1 then |
29 |
the whole exercise is useless. |
30 |
|
31 |
> And if you do have a lawyer who is worried about such a thing, |
32 |
> please let me talk to them and I'll be glad to put them in contact |
33 |
> with loads of other lawyers who will be glad to discuss it. |
34 |
|
35 |
> What company or legal entity has concern with the DCO as-written? |
36 |
|
37 |
Everybody who wants to commit a license file to the Gentoo repository, |
38 |
and with the DCO 1.1 would have to lie about its status? |
39 |
|
40 |
> That's not the only thing that you have changed here, as you state. |
41 |
> You changed the wording of the types of licenses (hint, "free |
42 |
> software" is not the same as "open source" and has consequences by |
43 |
> changing that wording.) |
44 |
|
45 |
It is generally acknowledged that "open source" licenses and "free |
46 |
software licenses" are mostly congruent. (There are very few OSI |
47 |
approved licenses like Artistic 1.0 which the FSF classifies as |
48 |
non-free. The other way around, I am not aware of any.) |
49 |
|
50 |
Nevertheless, I don't have a strong opinion here. Our Social Contract |
51 |
says "free software", so we changed it to that for consistency, but |
52 |
replacement of the term alone wouldn't be a sufficient reason to |
53 |
create a modified version. |
54 |
|
55 |
>> Do you think that anybody would have difficulties understanding |
56 |
>> this? Then please propose a better wording. |
57 |
|
58 |
> I am saying, over and over and over, that it's not up to me to |
59 |
> change the wording. I want _you_ to justify the change by getting a |
60 |
> solid legal opinion that what you are changing actually does what |
61 |
> you think it does, and is even needed in the first place. |
62 |
|
63 |
> Again, don't try to arm-chair legal issues. That ends up causing |
64 |
> many more problems than you can ever imagine. There's a good reason |
65 |
> that lawyers write licenses and legal texts as they understand |
66 |
> things that are not obvious to non-legally-trained people. |
67 |
|
68 |
(Sometimes I wonder how some people survive. Do they ask their lawyers |
69 |
before passing a green traffic light? Or before agreeing to a contract |
70 |
of sale in the grocery store? :-) |
71 |
|
72 |
> And again, you are ignoring the fact that we all are now going to |
73 |
> have to get the legal departments of our companies to evaluate this. |
74 |
> That will NOT take just 1 minute. If you use the DCO as-is, that |
75 |
> would only take 1 minute. |
76 |
|
77 |
How about the following change then: |
78 |
|
79 |
--- a/glep-0076.rst |
80 |
+++ b/glep-0076.rst |
81 |
@@ -133,12 +133,17 @@ with the project's license. |
82 |
For commits made using a VCS, the committer shall certify agreement |
83 |
to the Gentoo DCO by adding ``Signed-off-by: Name <e-mail>`` to the |
84 |
commit message as a separate line. Committers must use their real |
85 |
name, i.e., the name that would appear in an official document like |
86 |
a passport. |
87 |
|
88 |
+As an alternative to the above, commits may be certified with the |
89 |
+Linux Kernel DCO 1.1. Committers shall clearly indicate this by |
90 |
+adding ``(Linux DCO 1.1)`` at the end of the ``Signed-off-by`` line. |
91 |
+Using the Gentoo DCO is strongly preferred, though. |
92 |
+ |
93 |
The following is the current Gentoo DCO:: |
94 |
|
95 |
Gentoo Developer's Certificate of Origin, revision 1 |
96 |
|
97 |
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: |
98 |
|
99 |
|
100 |
It would allow anyone who has issues with our modified version to |
101 |
commit under the original Linux DCO instead. Of course, certain files |
102 |
they couldn't commit then. |
103 |
|
104 |
Ulrich |