Re: Developer's Certificate of Origin

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:05:07 -0700
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<3598604.UXpbtGOAYT@soren-desktop>
On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 6:40:11 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 4:48:30 AM MST Ulrich Müller wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 2:48:51 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> >> I don't follow.  Do you believe the DCO is a license text?
> >> > 
> >> > Yes.  There is no question that the DCO is a license.  It says right
> >> > in the text it is a license.
> >> 
> >> So if someone wants to include any non-free file in a package, they can
> >> just claim in its header that it is a license, and it will be excepted
> >> from the DFSG? That seems like a strange concept.
> > 
> > I can’t imagine anyone making that claim, and no one has in this thread.
> > 
> > However, if a project includes their Contributor License Agreement in 
their
> > source code (the DSO in this case), doing so does not pose any DFSG 
problems
> > (and, indeed, is a good idea, because it strengthens the chain of custody 
of
> > the open-source license presented by the project to the end users).
> 
> I don't think so -- the fact that a DCO is included does not guarantee
> that contributions were made under that DCO.  It is just an auxilliary
> text file with a non-free license, referred to by a README.  It may be
> that some contributions were given under the DCO, but there is no
> guarantee, and this doesn't modify anything about the rights I'm given
> as a user from the outgoing license.

No, it doesn’t *guarantee* anything (I believe I have been very careful never 
to use the word guarantee in anything I have written about the DCO), just like 
nothing in a Debian package guarantees that one of the contributors didn’t lie 
about their copyright claims.  But it does *document* the claims that are made 
about the code contributions to the project, just like the copyright 
information Debian distributes documents the claims that are being made about 
copyright of code in the project.

> Generally, I can't align your thinking with the decisions about the FDL:
> 
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
> 
> I made the example earlier of a manual that has an FDL Invariant Section
> that includes a copy of the GPL.  I believe Debian consider that as
> non-free, since a manual shouldn't contain things that cannot be
> modified, but if I'm understanding you correctly you argue that would be
> acceptable.

I am familiar with the outcome of the vote you mentioned earlier, and I fully 
agree that the GFDL with Invariant Sections is not DFSG-free.  For the sake of 
others who might not be aware, other similar licenses are DFSG-free, including 
the GPL and the GFDL with No Invariant Sections, No Front Cover Texts, and No 
Back Cover Texts (abbreviated in Debian as GFDL-NIV).  As I have explained 
multiple times in this thread, trying to compare the DCO with the GFDL with 
Invariant Sections is the wrong comparison.  You need to compare it to the 
GPL.  The text of the DCO that has raised concerns here was never discussed as 
a problem in https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001.  Identical text 
appears in the GPL.  If you would like to continue this discussion, please 
stop referencing https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 (or prove how it is 
somehow connected to the DCO) and make a argument about why both the DCO and 
the GPL should be considered DFSG-non-free.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)