On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 04:56:58PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > In any case, I don't think it is necessary to actually modify the DCO.
Ah, good. Then the verbatim copy license is sufficient, and we don't need to decide if the GPLv2 with Linus' exception applies. > I don't believe that it requires redistributing commit messages. I don't either, it just means that you *can* sign the DCO for a commit that you got from someone who's also signed the DCO for that commit. We just went down this licensing track because of: 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. I thought that sounded like you were suggesting a modification to the DCO, so I pointed out that I don't think that's legal. If you were just suggesting some “we interpret clause (c) to mean …” comment on the wiki or somewhere else, that clearly is legal, but I don't see the point. Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
