On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > I cannot agree to the D-C-O in good faith, since it speaks of open > source licenses, a group of licenses that include non-free software > licenses, something which I cannot support. If you can't sign off on it, then Junio shouldn't take it, since you're basically saying that you cannot say that you own the copyrights or cannot license it under the appropriate copyright. Yes, it speaks of "open source licenses", but it says: "under the open source license indicated in the file", and "appropriate open source license". For git, that's GPLv2 (or GPLv2-compatible, ie something like the simplified BSD license that can just be converted to GPLv2). The DCO is phrased that way so that other projects that use things like the BSD or Apache license can still use the DCO as-is. Side note: for somebody with a "gnu.org" address, you're showing some really bad taste. Do you know that the FSF ends up asking for a hell of a lot of paperwork and other crazy things to take peoples submissions. And they actually want the copyrights signed over, so that they can change it to _any_ license. The DCO, in contrast, is a paragon of simplicity and clarity, and doesn't ask you to sign away any rights. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html