>>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Greg KH wrote:
>> Also, I wouldn't completely exclude that we need to change the
>> wording at some later point. Therefore, we may indeed consider
>> taking the DCO from the Linux source tree which is distributed
>> under the GPL-2, instead of the non-free version ("changing it is
>> not allowed") from developercertificate.org. Their wording is
>> identical except for the preamble.> You can't change the text of a license and call it the same thing, > 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... Sure, the text shouldn't be changed without changing the name. I guess that's common sense, because otherwise it would be confusing. > 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. So the DCO was devised by a license lawyer? TBH, I find it less than optimal. It is an enumeration with all its items at equal level, but its meaning is "I certify ((a || b || c) && d)". That is, structure doesn't follow contents there, and at first glance the "or" (or its absence) at the end of each item can be easily missed. Ulrich
pgpGzZCjv_WHi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
