| 1 |
On 25/06/2018 08:50, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> Has there ever been a wider review of the Linux DCO? If not, then it |
| 3 |
> is not surprising if it fits the needs of kernel development only |
| 4 |
> (which is very homogeneous, license wise), but not necessarily other |
| 5 |
> projects. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
+1 |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
It's been very convincing for me as a software engineer to use DCO |
| 10 |
everywhere. However, I can also see the opposing argument, that the |
| 11 |
situation of many companies and project is very different from Linux |
| 12 |
Foundation's, especially from legal point of view. Even though I might |
| 13 |
not personally be fully convinced, I certainly accept that specialists |
| 14 |
(lawyers) have a deeper understanding of that perspective. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
>> and doing it by not getting legal review of such changes is an even |
| 17 |
>> worse idea. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>> Would you want a medical doctor to write a legal document? If not, |
| 20 |
>> why would you want a programmer to do so? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Are you saying that the DCO is so complicated that all devs will need |
| 23 |
> a lawyer, in order to understand what they are certifying? Then we are |
| 24 |
> doing something fundamentally wrong. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Greg has a good point here. It may help to state clearly what are we |
| 27 |
trying to accomplish here, and evaluate different solutions against that |
| 28 |
goal. If our fork of DCO would still be optional, what does it |
| 29 |
accomplish? Might it create some additional issues? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Paweł |
Archives