On 2024-11-26 14:31, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I don't see any problem with the license on the GPL text itself, when GPL is used as a license on a piece of work in Debian and documented in debian/copyright.
The DCO is not used in that way, and nobody has suggested they ought to be treated the same way so far.
They seem roughly similar to me. The DCO seems like a license, a copyright notice, or something in the same ballpark.
But let's take a different approach:Who is being harmed, and in what way, by a copy of the DCO being included in a package in main (which has contributions which were certified to that DCO)?
The question is not rhetorical. IANAL, but the idea of harm/damages seems to be a pretty fundamental legal concept. I think that computer programmers have a tendency to treat licenses as if they are self-executing (and precise like software). From what I can tell, the legal system does not operate that way, and actual lawyers make distinctions based on harm/damages or lack thereof.
To be clear, I stand behind the principles of the DFSG. But I don't think Bob's software freedoms are harmed because he cannot change the terms of the certification Alice made about the code Alice contributed.
-- Richard
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
