From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Developer's Certificate of Origin: default to COPYING Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:15:38 -0400 Message-ID: <52324B1A.2030001@bbn.com> References: <1379023862-29953-1-git-send-email-rhansen@bbn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 13 01:15:54 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VKG70-0007iw-C1 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 01:15:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756421Ab3ILXPm (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:15:42 -0400 Received: from smtp.bbn.com ([128.33.0.80]:17263 "EHLO smtp.bbn.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756196Ab3ILXPm (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:15:42 -0400 Received: from socket.bbn.com ([192.1.120.102]:55542) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1VKG6t-0002Ho-69; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:15:39 -0400 X-Submitted: to socket.bbn.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD9894092A User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 2013-09-12 18:44, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Linus, this is not limited to us, so I am bothering you; sorry about >> that. >> >> My instinct tells me that some competent lawyers at linux-foundation >> helped you with the wording of DCO, and we amateurs shouldn't be >> mucking with the text like this patch does at all, but just in case >> you might find it interesting... > > There were lawyers involved, yes. > > I'm not sure there is any actual confusion, because the fact is, > lawyers aren't robots or programmers, and they have the human > qualities of understanding implications. Well stated. :) > So I'm actually inclined to > not change legal text unless a lawyer actually tells me that it's > needed. Is it worthwhile to poke a lawyer about this as a precaution? (If so, who?) Or do we wait for a motivating event? > > Plus even if this change was needed, why would anybody point to > "COPYING". It's much better to just say "the copyright license of the > file", knowing that different projects have different rules about this > all, and some projects mix files from different sources, where parts > of the tree may be under different licenses that may be explained > elsewhere.. I agree that your phrasing is better. -Richard