From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264994AbUEYRzK (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 13:55:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265010AbUEYRxg (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 13:53:36 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:38841 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264994AbUEYRxA (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 13:53:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:52:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu cc: "La Monte H.P. Yarroll" , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission In-Reply-To: <200405251740.i4PHeQJY014847@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Message-ID: References: <40B369D5.7070805@timesys.com> <200405251740.i4PHeQJY014847@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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