Soren Stoutner <so...@debian.org> writes: > On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:31:51 PM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I disagree. 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. > > Good. > >> The rest of your argument assume that I >> do. The DCO is not used in that way, and nobody has suggested they >> ought to be treated the same way so far. So the situations aren't >> comparable. > > The DCO is part of the chain of custody of the license, similar to the how > the > copyright is part of the chain of custody of the license. It documents that > the person providing the license has the right to provide you with the > license, similar to how a copyright statement documents that the person > providing the license has the right to provide you with the license.
I don't follow. Do you beliece the DCO is a license text? And that the DCO is part of the license that applies to the work in Debian? There doesn't seem to be consensus on that, Sam said no, but I'm interpreting what you say as yes, but it would help to get clarity here. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
