On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:11:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, > > So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?"
That's one objection of mine, yes. The other being you can't just take almost all of the original text and still call it the same thing, when it obviously isn't, and the document says you can't do that :) > I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under > trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the > "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC > LICENSE." The former has far more trademark protection than the > latter. Do you see that term trademarked anywhere? I will go file for one if you really insist on it, but really, think this through please. > > which > > is why that wording is there (same wording is in the GPL), so don't > > think that by pointing at the one in the kernel source tree that changes > > anything... > > The Linux Foundation published a version of their DCO under the GPL, > which we would of course abide by. The fact that they published it > elsewhere with a different license doesn't mean that we can't re-use > the version published under the GPL. How well does "plain text" work under the GPL? Go on, I've been down that path before, it's well-worn, we'll be here when you get back... :) > If we aren't changing anything that does raise the question of why not > just use the Linux DCO, v1.1 or whatever it is at, incorporated by > reference. I do think we have the legal right to fork it since it was > effectively published by the Linux Foundation under the GPL, but that > doesn't require us to fork it. Please just use the one as-published. thanks, greg k-h
