On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 6:40:11 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: > 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.
No, it doesn’t *guarantee* anything (I believe I have been very careful never to use the word guarantee in anything I have written about the DCO), just like nothing in a Debian package guarantees that one of the contributors didn’t lie about their copyright claims. But it does *document* the claims that are made about the code contributions to the project, just like the copyright information Debian distributes documents the claims that are being made about copyright of code in the project. > 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. I am familiar with the outcome of the vote you mentioned earlier, and I fully agree that the GFDL with Invariant Sections is not DFSG-free. For the sake of others who might not be aware, other similar licenses are DFSG-free, including the GPL and the GFDL with No Invariant Sections, No Front Cover Texts, and No Back Cover Texts (abbreviated in Debian as GFDL-NIV). As I have explained multiple times in this thread, trying to compare the DCO with the GFDL with Invariant Sections is the wrong comparison. You need to compare it to the GPL. The text of the DCO that has raised concerns here was never discussed as a problem in https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001. Identical text appears in the GPL. If you would like to continue this discussion, please stop referencing https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 (or prove how it is somehow connected to the DCO) and make a argument about why both the DCO and the GPL should be considered DFSG-non-free. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
