On 10/27/2016 08:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > 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...) > Forgive me, but I don't see why people have so much trouble with copyright wrt Gentoo. I've simply assumed anything I wrote for Gentoo would be attributed to me via git log information and/or metadata.xml and should I leave Gentoo, Gentoo keeps the rights to it since I'm contributing to it. Nothing stops me from pushing ebuilds to my personal overlay *and* the primary Gentoo tree.
With a DCO, it greatly complicates things. Would my right to keep my contributions in an overlay be infringed upon? What would change if we switch to this? It's just odd to me that in one case (the comrel deal) we're aiming to simplify, but with copyright we're seemingly complicating things for -- through my perspective -- little gain. Is anyone at Gentoo actually concerned about the copyright of their ebuilds? -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
