Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> writes: >>>>>> "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.
Interesting. How do you combine that view with the interpretation that went into rejecting GFDL as a free license? I'm having trouble following your line of thinking after reading the following, especially regarding 2.1 Invariant Sections: https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 To be specific, how is this situation any different from a GFDL document with an Invariant Section including the text of the DCO or, say, the GPL license, or the GNU Manifesto? /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
