Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Forming Gentoo Policy - Copyright Assignment and Attribution

[Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 07:12:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > No change intended. This is what happens when you send a thirty second
> > follow-up to a policy formed over two weeks, and then step away to eat...
> 
> So, clarification now that I'm back at a keyboard...
> 
> DCO is mandatory, and is simply a declaration that the committer has
> checked and the new code is distributed under the license chosen for
> the project (see original email for details, but generally
> GPL/BSD/etc).  The Linux kernel is the main model for this.  Since
> Gentoo is not always being assigned copyright we need to have a clear
> declaration that the code is available under a suitable free license
> so that we can further distribute it.
> 
> FLA is optional, and is essentially a copyright assignment (or
> reasonable facsimile in certain jurisdictions designed by the FSFe).
> KDE is the main model for this.
> 
> But, to whatever extent that anything I just wrote disagrees with the
> original email, just read the original email.  The original email was
> carefully proofread by the Trustees, the rest is just
> discussion/reminders/etc.  The final policy will be even more
> carefully reviewed.  The whole bit about mandatory copyright
> assignment was dropped after the last round of discussion for all the
> reasons that have just been rehashed...

Ok, good, that's why I didn't object to the first email, only to this
one which seemed to say something else, so I assumed it was I who
misread the first version.

Nevermind then, sorry for the noise :)

greg k-h