>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> writes:
Simon> Interesting -- am I understanding you correctly that you
Simon> would like to treat the DCO as a license text?
No.
Simon> And that it
Simon> is license that applies to the work in Debian?
No.
Simon> As far as I understand, DCO's are about granting rights on
Simon> contributions. Not granting rights to users, which is what
Simon> the DFSG is about. So I'm not sure I follow why the DFSG is
Simon> relevant for the DCO text at all. The DCO appears to me like
Simon> any other text file in a source package.
I agree, the DCO is another file in a source package.
Debian does not require that people be granted the right to modify files
in Debian source packages.
DFSG 4: 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.
So, I think it would be problematic if the DCO were included in a built
binary unless there were mechanisms to change the text of the DCO in a
built binary (and doing so were legal).
However, the DCO is generally run by humans rather than computers.
A project could include contribution guidelines including the text of
DCO 1.1 and explaining the project specific modifications.
The humans evaluating whether contributions could be accepted could
evaluate as appropriate.
Yes, I am looking for a way to make the DCO fit the DFSG. Yes, in other
circumstances I might look for a way to say no rather for a way to say
yes.
People have explained why we want to find a yes answer in this
circumstance and why what the DCO is doing is reasonable.
I believe DFSG 4 gives us that yes if we choose to use it.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
