From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B508A138334 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 14:08:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B407E09D4; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 14:08:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com (mail-pf0-f177.google.com [209.85.192.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09E97E09D0 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 14:08:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f177.google.com with SMTP id a1-v6so2651488pfi.5 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 07:08:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=o+NuryTVL1BmJIYF8dfN8e+/wMMhNSqyyYKSvvW7KYo=; b=A5oQmOdIN6r5SECYnjX2GLOc8mHcz4PRnwi0kDH1kLswIA8HcD2W52fKiObTaUZsXj FWcFchP6bDgiHgU+v2efcPZT30CVp+D6N18Wq49n1gIN2qNYP/C9kmzyJOFnLbp9Iqmn zh5NCQkKveyER8iCcKjSX+8awTSYxzw8Ek9L4MpYGC8283ZRqioXG0W3CjsBg9U17dci 8jYordpc5Dp63De5k/9BEsi4A+wmAgsVrEoY4me28vA+usqszoQ+jfA82T+uKkyWzC0S TW0eK2vGkFFoqGPReLYWqIuudYykHRfIccL/SUIQXjRzJy0M3Dfd0ZpA/0K3SFrXJruP 1WYA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1l9HEeiA/VqioMmePMoAgT/LEXq25fumYthotkHl3sklg3edYm PbmT3JrwZ9ekgZEHd1NADrEhD/EGrxxIQ5H+cN8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLH9+3q5YP1xk8N90CwiqFJQE9pU5OWhowXuVmmwfKtyUX8jMcKIIsBsZaMypPEJLpx+xMfPhK01VYNv8jgcFU= X-Received: by 2002:a65:6612:: with SMTP id w18-v6mr10649379pgv.38.1529935718440; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 07:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <23310.46809.293787.611345@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <23317.12829.91552.529904@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20180625013334.GA28404@kroah.com> <23344.37042.753481.563752@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20180625070525.GA6151@kroah.com> <23344.40875.105369.227774@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20180625110540.GB3058@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20180625110540.GB3058@kroah.com> From: Rich Freeman Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:08:26 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: Poll: Would you sign a Contributer License Agreement? To: Greg KH Cc: Ulrich Mueller , gentoo-project Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 54623305-ff18-43de-9cf6-8c204d2ed02c X-Archives-Hash: 4b28a958195ce12c157a64bacd5ef037 On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:05 AM Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 09:54:19AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > 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. > > And as the Debian developers said, "that's crazy-talk, don't worry about > it." Seriously, don't. Do you have some kind of link to this? Distributing the licenses is completely legal, but I don't see how anybody could make the certifications in the DCO when doing so. > > What company or legal entity has concern with the DCO as-written? > Well, I do, at least as far as license commits go. How could I make the certifications in your DCO when committing a license file like the GPL? The text of the upstream DCO says that the file is "covered under an appropriate open source license," and the GPL isn't covered under an open source license. Don't get me wrong, per the terms in the GPL it is completely legal to redistribute. My problem isn't with redistributing the GPL. My problem is with signing off on the DCO when committing the GPL to a repository, because I'd be making a statement that isn't true. An alternative to this would be to not require a DCO signoff when committing license files. > That's not the only thing that you have changed here, as you state. You > changed the wording of the types of licenses (hint, "free software" is > not the same as "open source" and has consequences by changing that > wording.) Sure, but our intent is to require the use of a free software license. So, the consequences are intentional here. It isn't adequate to merely certify that the work is covered by an open source license (this would be one of those cases where the needs of the Linux Foundation may not be the same as the needs of everybody). The other wording change is in changing how the outline numbering works, to separate the three OR clauses from the one AND clause. -- Rich