On 2013-09-12 18:44, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 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 with the text like this patch does at all, but just in case >> you might find it interesting... > > There were lawyers involved, yes. > > I'm not sure there is any actual confusion, because the fact is, > lawyers aren't robots or programmers, and they have the human > qualities of understanding implications. Well stated. :) > So I'm actually inclined to > not change legal text unless a lawyer actually tells me that it's > needed. Is it worthwhile to poke a lawyer about this as a precaution? (If so, who?) Or do we wait for a motivating event? > > Plus even if this change was needed, why would anybody point to > "COPYING". It's much better to just say "the copyright license of the > file", knowing that different projects have different rules about this > all, and some projects mix files from different sources, where parts > of the tree may be under different licenses that may be explained > elsewhere.. I agree that your phrasing is better. -Richard -- 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