Re: [PATCH] Replace elfutils DCO with standard DCO.

[Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven dot org>]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 09:59:28AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 09:24:10PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > I now believe that it is best not to deviate from the text of the
> > Linux kernel DCO, as having a standardized DCO text will promote
> > familiarity with and adoption of the DCO as an alternative to less
> > desirable contribution policies. It is the view of some Linux kernel
> > developers that it is best not to have proliferation of DCOs across
> > different projects.
> 
> I like the idea if having a standard DCO that other Free Software
> projects can adopt as is. But as you note the one derived from the
> linux kernel project has some wording/bugs that makes it not very
> well suited to adoption by other projects as is. The usage of
> neutral wording on the license used, making sure the DCO explicitly
> deals with and says all (dual) license rights applicable to the
> project are granted by the contributor, and that projects might
> have different ways to designate which licenses are applicable to
> (sub) modules than attaching an individual copyright and license
> statement in each and every file are all important features that
> cause projects to have to change the text.
> 
> I would encourage you to submit those fixes to the linux kernel
> projects so they can be adopted by a standardized DCO text. Then
> I believe we would be happy to upgrade.

Okay. I think that at this time there would be zero chance of having
any changes adopted by the Linux kernel, so I withdraw the patch given
that elfutils likes the features of its DCO.

Richard