The Developer's Certificate of Origin refers to the open source
license indicated in the file, but there is no such indication in
most files in the Git repository.
Update the text to indicate that the license in COPYING should be
assumed if a file doesn't excplicitly indicate which license
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
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
I certainly wouldn't recommend messing with the text of the DCO
without first consulting some lawyers. There should also be some
centralized coordination about any changes in the text and the version
number.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
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
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Richard Hansen rhan...@bbn.com wrote:
Is it worthwhile to poke a lawyer about this as a precaution? (If so,
who?) Or do we wait for a motivating event?
I can poke the lawyer that was originally involved. If people know
other lawyers, feel free to poke them
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 04:25:03PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Richard Hansen rhan...@bbn.com wrote:
Is it worthwhile to poke a lawyer about this as a precaution? (If so,
who?) Or do we wait for a motivating event?
I can poke the lawyer that was
7 matches
Mail list logo
