Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> writes: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> writes: > > Simon> Hi. The DCO v1.1 published on > Simon> https://developercertificate.org/ says: > > Simon> Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its > Simon> contributors. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute > Simon> verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is > Simon> not allowed. > > Simon> The license appears non-free to me, does anyone disagree? > > Seems fine under DFSG 4 (author's integrity). > I can say something like > I assert DCO with the following modifications.
Interesting -- am I understanding you correctly that you would like to treat the DCO as a license text? And that it is license that applies to the work in Debian? As far as I understand, DCO's are about granting rights on contributions. Not granting rights to users, which is what the DFSG is about. So I'm not sure I follow why the DFSG is relevant for the DCO text at all. The DCO appears to me like any other text file in a source package. If you believe the DCO is part of the license grant on a work, and there is consensus on that interpretation, should it then be mentioned in debian/copyright? /Simon DFSG 4 -- https://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html#guidelines Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
