Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Richard Laager <[email protected]> Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:07:22 -0600

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On 2024-11-26 14:31, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I don't see any problem with the license on the GPL text
> itself, when GPL is used as a license on a piece of work in Debian and
> documented in debian/copyright.

> The DCO is not used in that way, and nobody has suggested they
> ought to be treated the same way so far.

They seem roughly similar to me. The DCO seems like a license, a 
copyright notice, or something in the same ballpark.

But let's take a different approach:

Who is being harmed, and in what way, by a copy of the DCO being 
included in a package in main (which has contributions which were 
certified to that DCO)?

The question is not rhetorical. IANAL, but the idea of harm/damages 
seems to be a pretty fundamental legal concept. I think that computer 
programmers have a tendency to treat licenses as if they are 
self-executing (and precise like software). From what I can tell, the 
legal system does not operate that way, and actual lawyers make 
distinctions based on harm/damages or lack thereof.

To be clear, I stand behind the principles of the DFSG. But I don't 
think Bob's software freedoms are harmed because he cannot change the 
terms of the certification Alice made about the code Alice contributed.

-- 
Richard

OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)