On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 06:47:04PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> This is from the last policy draft:
> >> https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/copyrightpolicy.xml
>
> > Why redraft the already-useful DCO that is out there for you to use
> > as-is:
> > http://developercertificate.org/
>
> > As you copied the text, be sure to give proper reference to who owns
> > the copyright of that text please, you just can't rename it and
> > claim it as your own :)
>
> In fact, Rich *does* give credit to Linux:
> "The DCO is based on the
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> Linux Kernel DCO"
Credit is nice, but you have to remember copyright issues :)
> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the wording
> at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO
> from the Linux source tree which is distributed under the GPL-2,
> instead of the non-free version ("changing it is not allowed") from
> developercertificate.org. Their wording is identical except for the
> preamble.
You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, which
is why that wording is there (same wording is in the GPL), so don't
think that by pointing at the one in the kernel source tree that changes
anything...
And I would _strongly_ not recomment changing the wording without
consulting with a license lawyer, you can mess things up really quickly
by changing stuff.
Again, just point to the one we have, use the web site (which better not
go away), and copy it locally if you feel it somehow will.
thanks,
greg k-h
