>>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Matthias Maier wrote: >> Therefore, we may indeed consider taking the DCO from the Linux source >> tree which is distributed under the GPL-2
> I highly doubt that the DCO in the readme is licensed under GPL-2. There > is no readme/header, or other indicator stating this. Not everything in > the linux repository falls under GPL-2. Few of the files in the Documentation subdir have a license header. It is also missing from various other files (top-level Makefile, for example). Following your reasoning, we would not be permitted to distribute kernel tarballs. So, should we add mirror restriction to sys-kernel/*-sources then? I very much doubt that this is the intention of upstream. I'd rather conclude that they are a bit lax with their headers (as compared to the FSF, for example). Also, in COPYING in the top-level dir there is this: Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but *the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel)* is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. [*...* my emphasis, _..._ author's emphasis] I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted otherwise. Ulrich
pgpdn2yGwz6SD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
