On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux > kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted > otherwise. >
Stepping back, I'd just like to comment that while I hold an opinion on this that is likely different from gregkh, and possibly the Linux Foundation, I suspect this is going to be moot since as far as I can tell we aren't modifying the DCO and don't really think we need to. So, it is probably simpler to avoid controversy by just incorporating it by reference under their original name, which is certainly the intention of the Linux Foundation in promoting it. I think it is an interesting discussion/debate as to whether the Linux Foundation has or hasn't effectively released the DCO under the GPL with no further restrictions. However, I don't think it ultimately is going to drive what we do. So, we can just have our private opinions here, and I do get Greg's arguments (and I acknowledge that he is a bit of an expert in this space). I'll just note that tempest in a teapot actually drives home the importance of explicit copyright and license notices, since it is the absence of any such notice in this file that is in part driving this controversy. Some of the potential ambiguities with our own current policy could create similar issues, and they have in fact gotten people upset when code was brought into a Gentoo repository without a good policy on how to handle the copyright notices. Authorship and ownership matter to people. A good copyright policy is about respecting the rights of others as much as preserving our own. (And, as always, everything above is just my personal opinion...) -- Rich
