Hi Richard, On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 09:24:10PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > I now believe that it is best not to deviate from the text of the > Linux kernel DCO, as having a standardized DCO text will promote > familiarity with and adoption of the DCO as an alternative to less > desirable contribution policies. It is the view of some Linux kernel > developers that it is best not to have proliferation of DCOs across > different projects.
I like the idea if having a standard DCO that other Free Software projects can adopt as is. But as you note the one derived from the linux kernel project has some wording/bugs that makes it not very well suited to adoption by other projects as is. The usage of neutral wording on the license used, making sure the DCO explicitly deals with and says all (dual) license rights applicable to the project are granted by the contributor, and that projects might have different ways to designate which licenses are applicable to (sub) modules than attaching an individual copyright and license statement in each and every file are all important features that cause projects to have to change the text. I would encourage you to submit those fixes to the linux kernel projects so they can be adopted by a standardized DCO text. Then I believe we would be happy to upgrade. The actual DCO used by the linux kernel project (and very meta, how to propose patches to it) can be found at: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches Thanks, Mark
