Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

The *signed* DCO is useful. The *unsigned* DCO is not, it's mostly there for future contributors. On Fri, Nov 29, 2024, 14:11 Soren Stoutner wrote: > On Friday, November 29, 2024 12:03:34 PM MST Daniel Hakimi wrote: > > I don't think the unsigned DCO really supports the chain of custody/title >

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

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 wrote: > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 6:40:11 AM MST Simon Josefs

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

On Friday, November 29, 2024 12:03:34 PM MST Daniel Hakimi wrote: > 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. You can certainly make an argument that the

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Florian, On Friday, November 29, 2024 1:22:07 AM MST Florian Weimer wrote: > * Soren Stoutner: > > The GFDL with Invariant Section is not the right comparison. The correct > > comparison is to the GPL (which has the exact same wording). > > The FSF gives permission to make modified versions of t

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

* Soren Stoutner: > The GFDL with Invariant Section is not the right comparison. The correct > comparison is to the GPL (which has the exact same wording). The FSF gives permission to make modified versions of the GPL, though: