On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote:
>
> >> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the
> >> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider
> >> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree which is distributed
> >> under the GPL-2, instead of the non-free version ("changing it is
> >> not allowed") from developercertificate.org. Their wording is
> >> identical except for the preamble.
>
> > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing,
> > 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...
>
> Sure, the text shouldn't be changed without changing the name. I guess
> that's common sense, because otherwise it would be confusing.
>
> > And I would _strongly_ not recomment changing the wording without
> > consulting with a license lawyer, you can mess things up really
> > quickly by changing stuff.
>
> So the DCO was devised by a license lawyer?
It was created with one, but that was not the only contributor of it.
> TBH, I find it less than optimal. It is an enumeration with all its
> items at equal level, but its meaning is "I certify ((a || b || c) &&
> d)". That is, structure doesn't follow contents there, and at first
> glance the "or" (or its absence) at the end of each item can be easily
> missed.
See, you have to be careful and read the whole thing, words can be
tricky :)
good luck!
greg k-h
