I don't think the unsigned DCO really supports the chain of custody/title all that much, but it may still put minds at ease that the project is following best practices regarding IP.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 12:05 Soren Stoutner <so...@debian.org> wrote: > 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
