Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 May 2004 10:52:55 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission |
| |
On Tue, 25 May 2004 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > It's unclear (at least to me) whether your issue is: > > a) You're submitting patches that consist of GPL'able code that you don't have > the company-internal paperwork in place to authorize the release; or
No, if I understood correctly he _does_ have all the rights internally, and it's just that he didn't write it, so (a) doesn't apply, and because the people who _did_ write it are all internal and don't themselves have the right to release it as GPL, (b) doesn't apply either (the "preexisting work" wasn't GPL'd, but it will be once he follows the rules).
Technically, I do believe (b) applies just because if he has the right to make it GPL'd, then he can (and should) just exercise that right _before_ he agrees to sign it off as per (b).
So I think the current DCO thing should be ok.
I really didn't want this to degrade into some lawyerese, and I _really_ don't want the "certificate of origin" to become some horrible thing that only a lawyer could love.
Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |