* [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: Poll: Would you sign a Contributer License Agreement?
[not found] ` <20180625070525.GA6151@kroah.com>
@ 2018-06-25 7:54 99% ` Ulrich Mueller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2018-06-25 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project; +Cc: Greg KH
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2640 bytes --]
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:50:26AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> [Replying to gentoo-project only.]
> Why? You put this on -core for a reason, why take conversations
> somewhere that not everyone can see them? That's just rude :)
>> Please read the whole thread. We have dropped the FLA/CLA in the
>> latest iteration. Also even in the previous versions it was meant to
>> be voluntary, i.e. devs were "welcome and encouraged (but *not*
>> required)" to sign it.
> Where is "the whole thread" at these days? It's hard to keep track of
> it all.
gentoo-project mailing list, thread "[RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy".
Latest draft is at: https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0076.html
>> > And again, as I previously stated, "forking" the DCO is a horrible
>> > idea,
>>
>> Has there ever been a wider review of the Linux DCO? If not, then it
>> is not surprising if it fits the needs of kernel development only
>> (which is very homogeneous, license wise), but not necessarily other
>> projects.
> Yes, there has been, it is used by lots of differently licensed
> projectes these days. One example would be a large number of the CNCF
> projects (kuberneties and friends).
> It has also been vetted and approved by the legal departments of all
> companies that allow their developers to contribute to open source
> projects. Again, a very wide range of legal and developer vetting has
> happened. If you know of any current problems, please let us know.
The problems are listed in the rationale of GLEP 76.
With the license currently listed at https://developercertificate.org/
("changing is not allowed") nobody would even be allowed to commit the
DCO to a repository under it's own terms. Catch-22.
We can only commit it under the CC-BY-SA under which it (fortunately)
has been released earlier, and then we _are_ permitted to fix any bugs
in it.
>> Are you saying that the DCO is so complicated that all devs will need
>> a lawyer, in order to understand what they are certifying? Then we are
>> doing something fundamentally wrong.
> I'm saying that if you change the DCO then it will have to be vetted by
> all corporate legal departments. If you do not change it, it is an easy
> "we know all about that one, it's fine" 1 minute conversation.
It hopefully takes less than 1 minute to read and understand the item
that we have added:
(3) The contribution is a license text (or a file of similar nature),
and verbatim distribution is allowed; or
Do you think that anybody would have difficulties understanding this?
Then please propose a better wording.
Ulrich
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2018-05-30 14:36 [gentoo-project] Poll: Would you sign a Contributer License Agreement? Ulrich Mueller
2018-06-04 12:35 ` [gentoo-project] " Ulrich Mueller
[not found] ` <20180625013334.GA28404@kroah.com>
2018-06-25 6:50 ` [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-core] " Ulrich Mueller
[not found] ` <20180625070525.GA6151@kroah.com>
2018-06-25 7:54 99% ` Ulrich Mueller
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox