Soren Stoutner <so...@debian.org> writes: > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 4:48:30 AM MST Ulrich Müller wrote: >> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024, Soren Stoutner wrote: >> > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 2:48:51 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: >> >> I don't follow. Do you believe the DCO is a license text? >> > >> > Yes. There is no question that the DCO is a license. It says right >> > in the text it is a license. >> >> So if someone wants to include any non-free file in a package, they can >> just claim in its header that it is a license, and it will be excepted >> from the DFSG? That seems like a strange concept. > > I can’t imagine anyone making that claim, and no one has in this thread. > > However, if a project includes their Contributor License Agreement in their > source code (the DSO in this case), doing so does not pose any DFSG problems > (and, indeed, is a good idea, because it strengthens the chain of custody of > the open-source license presented by the project to the end users).
I don't think so -- the fact that a DCO is included does not guarantee that contributions were made under that DCO. It is just an auxilliary text file with a non-free license, referred to by a README. It may be that some contributions were given under the DCO, but there is no guarantee, and this doesn't modify anything about the rights I'm given as a user from the outgoing license. Generally, I can't align your thinking with the decisions about the FDL: https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 I made the example earlier of a manual that has an FDL Invariant Section that includes a copy of the GPL. I believe Debian consider that as non-free, since a manual shouldn't contain things that cannot be modified, but if I'm understanding you correctly you argue that would be acceptable. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
