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:

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 6:40:11 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: > Soren Stoutner 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:

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Soren Stoutner 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? >> > >> > Y

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

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 t

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

> 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 someo

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Simon, 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. > And that the DCO is part of the license that applies to t

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Soren Stoutner writes: > On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:31:51 PM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I disagree. I don't see any problem with the license on the GPL text >> itself, when GPL is used as a license on a piece of work in Debian and >> documented in debian/copyright. > > Good. > >> The res

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

On 2024-11-26 14:31, Simon Josefsson wrote: I don't see any problem with the license on the GPL text itself, when GPL is used as a license on a piece of work in Debian and documented in debian/copyright. The DCO is not used in that way, and nobody has suggested they ought to be treated the sam

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:31:51 PM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: > I disagree. I don't see any problem with the license on the GPL text > itself, when GPL is used as a license on a piece of work in Debian and > documented in debian/copyright. Good. > The rest of your argument assume that I >

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Soren Stoutner writes: > On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:44:18 PM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Interesting. How do you combine that view with the interpretation that >> went into rejecting GFDL as a free license? I'm having trouble >> following your line of thinking after reading the followin

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:44:18 PM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: > Interesting. How do you combine that view with the interpretation that > went into rejecting GFDL as a free license? I'm having trouble > following your line of thinking after reading the following, especially > regarding 2.1

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 11:29:56 AM MST Daniel Hakimi wrote: > The DCO is very intentionally *not* a license of any kind. A Contributor > License Agreement is a license. The DCO was invented because many > contributors were uncomfortable with contributor license agreements for > various reaso

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Sam Hartman writes: >> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson writes: > > Simon> Interesting -- am I understanding you correctly that you > Simon> would like to treat the DCO as a license text? > No. > > Simon> And that it > Simon> is license that applies to the work in Debian?

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

The DCO is very intentionally *not* a license of any kind. A Contributor License Agreement is a license. The DCO was invented because many contributors were uncomfortable with contributor license agreements for various reasons. All the DCO does is confirm that you have the right to make the contrib

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 10:28:18 AM MST Daniel Hakimi wrote: > The DCO is not technically a license, but it is a legal document that > usually comes along with a license from the contributor to the project > (that license usually being the project license). It also serves to replace > a Contr

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

The DCO is not technically a license, but it is a legal document that usually comes along with a license from the contributor to the project (that license usually being the project license). It also serves to replace a Contributor License Agreement, offering only a base level of assurances that the

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson writes: Simon> Interesting -- am I understanding you correctly that you Simon> would like to treat the DCO as a license text? No. Simon> And that it Simon> is license that applies to the work in Debian? No. Simon> As far as I understa

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson writes: Simon> Sam Hartman writes: >>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson writes: >> Simon> Interesting -- am I understanding you correctly that you Simon> would like to treat the DCO as a license text? And that it Simon> is license that ap

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Soren Stoutner writes: > On Monday, November 25, 2024 12:35:17 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Hi. >> >> The DCO v1.1 published on https://developercertificate.org/ says: >> >> Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors. >> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Sam Hartman writes: >> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson writes: > > Simon> Hi. The DCO v1.1 published on > Simon> https://developercertificate.org/ says: > > Simon> Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its > Simon> contributors. Everyone is permitted to copy and dis

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson writes: Simon> Hi. The DCO v1.1 published on Simon> https://developercertificate.org/ says: Simon> Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its Simon> contributors. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute Simon> verbatim copie

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

* On 11/25/24 18:36, Daniel Hakimi wrote: In that sense, the DCO itself and GPL itself are technically proprietary documents. This isn't a problem in practice, you should not modify these legal documents at home, that's a bad idea, and it's not a super important freedom to preserve. To expand

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Those words, in both the case of the DCO and GPL, are self-referential; you cannot modify the DCO or the GPL freely. You can modify the work the GPL covers, and the contribution in the DCO is generally licensed under the license of the project you're contributing to. In that sense, the DCO itself

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

On Monday, November 25, 2024 12:35:17 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote: > Hi. > > The DCO v1.1 published on https://developercertificate.org/ says: > > Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors. > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this > licen

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

; Does anyone know a way to talk to the Linux Foundation and ask them > > to > > release the text into the public domain?  Or at least release it > > under > > some license that allows modifications. > > It was released under CC-BY-SA-2.5 in 2005: > > > © 20

Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

ications. It was released under CC-BY-SA-2.5 in 2005: | © 2005 Open Source Development Labs, Inc. | The Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 is licensed under a | Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. | If you modify you must use a name or title distinguishable from | "Dev

Developer's Certificate of Origin

Hi. The DCO v1.1 published on https://developercertificate.org/ says: Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. The license appears non-free to me,