Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

Linus Torvalds
2004-05-25T17:55:10Z

On Tue, 25 May 2004 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>
> It's unclear (at least to me) whether your issue is:
>
> a) You're submitting patches that consist of GPL'able code that you don't have
> the company-internal paperwork in place to authorize the release; or

No, if I understood correctly he _does_ have all the rights internally,
and it's just that he didn't write it, so (a) doesn't apply, and because
the people who _did_ write it are all internal and don't themselves have
the right to release it as GPL, (b) doesn't apply either (the "preexisting
work" wasn't GPL'd, but it will be once he follows the rules).

Technically, I do believe (b) applies just because if he has the right to
make it GPL'd, then he can (and should) just exercise that right _before_
he agrees to sign it off as per (b).

So I think the current DCO thing should be ok.

I really didn't want this to degrade into some lawyerese, and I _really_
don't want the "certificate of origin" to become some horrible thing that
only a lawyer could love.

Linus