On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 09:59:28AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > 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.
Okay. I think that at this time there would be zero chance of having any changes adopted by the Linux kernel, so I withdraw the patch given that elfutils likes the features of its DCO. Richard
