Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Sam Hartman <[email protected]> writes:

>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> writes:
>
>     Simon> Interesting -- am I understanding you correctly that you
>     Simon> would like to treat the DCO as a license text?
>     No.
>     
>     Simon> And that it
>     Simon> is license that applies to the work in Debian?
> No.
>
>     Simon> As far as I understand, DCO's are about granting rights on
>     Simon> contributions.  Not granting rights to users, which is what
>     Simon> the DFSG is about.  So I'm not sure I follow why the DFSG is
>     Simon> relevant for the DCO text at all.  The DCO appears to me like
>     Simon> any other text file in a source package.
>
> I agree, the DCO is another file in a source package.
> Debian does not require that people be granted the right to modify files
> in Debian source packages.
>
>
> DFSG 4: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
> modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch
> files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at
> build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software
> built from modified source code. The license may require derived works
> to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
>
> So, I think it would be problematic if the DCO were included in a built
> binary unless there were mechanisms to change the text of the DCO in a
> built binary (and doing so were legal).
>
> However, the DCO is generally run by humans rather than computers.
> A project could include contribution guidelines including the text of
> DCO 1.1 and explaining the project specific modifications.
> The humans evaluating whether contributions could be accepted could
> evaluate as appropriate.
>
> Yes, I am looking for a way to make the DCO fit the DFSG. Yes, in other
> circumstances I might look for a way to say no rather for a way to say
> yes.
> People have explained why  we want to find a yes answer in this
> circumstance and why what the DCO is doing is reasonable.
> I believe DFSG 4 gives us that yes if we choose to use it.

Interesting.  How do you combine that view with the interpretation that
went into rejecting GFDL as a free license?  I'm having trouble
following your line of thinking after reading the following, especially
regarding 2.1 Invariant Sections:

https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001

To be specific, how is this situation any different from a GFDL document
with an Invariant Section including the text of the DCO or, say, the GPL
license, or the GNU Manifesto?

/Simon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iIoEARYIADIWIQSjzJyHC50xCrrUzy9RcisI/kdFogUCZ0YlEhQcc2ltb25Aam9z
ZWZzc29uLm9yZwAKCRBRcisI/kdFol2uAQC3Hfwrx10FenggB+lqj5yB4TWltQJR
myWVOB1D77lq0gD/c0LGJfAlQvT4kvvNkuhR6QFpNTCvlvow37B/so1FbQw=
=tWjo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----