On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:27 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:13:35PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files >> >> themselves were not modified - not the commit message. >> > >> > The DCO text is verbatim copies only [1], so I don't think >> > adjusting clauses is legal. >> >> I copied it from /usr/src/linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches >> which is GPLv2, as far as I can tell. > > Luis R. Rodriguez and I spent some time trying to track this down with > the authors while I was factoring the signed-off-by documentation out > into a stand-alone repository [1,2]. There was some debate about > whether the text was copyrightable, but the explicit copyright claim > and license on the Linux Foundation's DCO page [3] settles it for me.
Great to hear that it settles it for you, but as far as I can tell, the Linux Foundation has released it under the GPL and continues to do so to this day. I suppose they can sue me if they don't agree, not that I can see why they would want to. :) > >> > Personally, I don't think the maintainer appending their s-o-b to >> > the user's commit is all that important (certainly not worth >> > blowing away the user's signature) when they can just sign and >> > s-o-b an explicit merge commit. >> >> Agree. No need to modify the original commit. > > So the policy in the wiki should be: > > “Don't clobber the user's signature on a commit, even to add your > Signed-off-by. Instead, explicitly merge signed user commits, or > have the user reroll the commit with your tweaks and re-sign it.” I disagree with this. I have no objections to keeping the original commit. However, I do object to requiring that the original commit being preserved. -- Rich
