On 2013-09-12 18:44, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Linus, this is not limited to us, so I am bothering you; sorry about
>> that.
>> My instinct tells me that some competent lawyers at linux-foundation
>> helped you with the wording of DCO, and we amateurs shouldn't be
>> mucking with the text like this patch does at all, but just in case
>> you might find it interesting...
> There were lawyers involved, yes.
> I'm not sure there is any actual confusion, because the fact is,
> lawyers aren't robots or programmers, and they have the human
> qualities of understanding implications.

Well stated.  :)

> So I'm actually inclined to
> not change legal text unless a lawyer actually tells me that it's
> needed.

Is it worthwhile to poke a lawyer about this as a precaution?  (If so,
who?)  Or do we wait for a motivating event?

> Plus even if this change was needed, why would anybody point to
> "COPYING". It's much better to just say "the copyright license of the
> file", knowing that different projects have different rules about this
> all, and some projects mix files from different sources, where parts
> of the tree may be under different licenses that may be explained
> elsewhere..

I agree that your phrasing is better.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to