On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:35:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:27 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:13:35PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King wrote: > >> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> >> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files > >> >> themselves were not modified - not the commit message. > >> > > >> > The DCO text is verbatim copies only [1], so I don't think > >> > adjusting clauses is legal. > >> > >> I copied it from /usr/src/linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > >> which is GPLv2, as far as I can tell. > > > > Luis R. Rodriguez and I spent some time trying to track this down with > > the authors while I was factoring the signed-off-by documentation out > > into a stand-alone repository [1,2]. There was some debate about > > whether the text was copyrightable, but the explicit copyright claim > > and license on the Linux Foundation's DCO page [3] settles it for me. > > Great to hear that it settles it for you, but as far as I can tell, > the Linux Foundation has released it under the GPL and continues to do > so to this day. I suppose they can sue me if they don't agree, not > that I can see why they would want to. :)
There's no Signed-off-by on the commits adding the DCO to the Linux tree ;). The only information I can find claiming copyright and licensing by one of the DCO authors is at http://developercertificate.org/. I suppose you could alter the DCO and claim it's under a different license, but the Linux Foundation lawers wrote the thing, so I think it's more respectful to take them at their word or just write your own certificate from scratch. > >> > Personally, I don't think the maintainer appending their s-o-b to > >> > the user's commit is all that important (certainly not worth > >> > blowing away the user's signature) when they can just sign and > >> > s-o-b an explicit merge commit. > >> > >> Agree. No need to modify the original commit. > > > > So the policy in the wiki should be: > > > > “Don't clobber the user's signature on a commit, even to add your > > Signed-off-by. Instead, explicitly merge signed user commits, or > > have the user reroll the commit with your tweaks and re-sign it.” > > I disagree with this. > > I have no objections to keeping the original commit. However, I do > object to requiring that the original commit being preserved. So, “You don't need to clobber…. Instead, you can explicitly….” Then it's clear that clobbering user sigs is allowed, even if it's not very nice ;). Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
