On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing,
So is the objection mainly to calling it a "Developer Certificate of Origin?" I'd think that the title of a legal document falls more under trademark law than copyright law. That is why the FSF publishes the "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" and not just the "GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE." The former has far more trademark protection than the latter. > which > is why that wording is there (same wording is in the GPL), so don't > think that by pointing at the one in the kernel source tree that changes > anything... The Linux Foundation published a version of their DCO under the GPL, which we would of course abide by. The fact that they published it elsewhere with a different license doesn't mean that we can't re-use the version published under the GPL. If the FSF published the GPL under the GPL then people would be free to redistribute modified versions of it as well. I don't think they would disagree with that. > And I would _strongly_ not recomment changing the wording without > consulting with a license lawyer, you can mess things up really quickly > by changing stuff. No argument there. I don't think we're actually changing anything at the moment. If we aren't changing anything that does raise the question of why not just use the Linux DCO, v1.1 or whatever it is at, incorporated by reference. I do think we have the legal right to fork it since it was effectively published by the Linux Foundation under the GPL, but that doesn't require us to fork it. -- Rich
