Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 20, 2013
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
"Finally, you spoke, and we listened. We have enlisted feedback from the community and have selected an approach to contributions inspired by the popular Linux Certificate of Origin."
Wow. Does this mean they will go for Linux-style mixed ownership?
Following the link to:
The answer is: No.
"I hereby grant to the Project, Hewlett-Packard Company and recipients of software distributed by the Project a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to ..."
Relicensing would use other OSI-approved licenses
Posted Sep 1, 2012 5:05 UTC (Sat) by speedster1 (subscriber, #8143)
"In some cases the project may need to relicense your contribution under other OSI-approved open source licenses in order to maintain the Apache-based licensing. For example, if your contribution is affected by GPL v2 code, the project may dual-license your code under both Apache 2.0 and GPL v2 or LGPLv2.1. This satisfies the GPL requirements, while still allowing other users to make use of the code under Apache."
This seems totally reasonable to me. Note that BSD-style licenses are *not* OSI approved. Having a relatively unbiased 3rd party organization determine acceptable license choices seems like a reasonable approach.
The alternative of trying to keep track of every contributor so that permission can be asked when needed... seems like an administrative nightmare. I know some projects have done that, but I'd rather allow OSI to by my proxy in approving licenses than cause somebody to burn so much time on getting consensus of every individual contributor.
Posted Sep 1, 2012 8:23 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
Suppose you wrote a nice little kernel driver, an extra feature to the Linux plumbing or whatever and you add a commit comment to your code:
Signed-off-by: First Last <email@example.com>
This basically mean: "yes, I'm allowed to commit those changes to this repository".
WebOS / HP went on and slightly changed clause (d) in order to create its own variant. So if you happen to write:
Open-webOS-DCO-1.0-Signed-off-by: First Last <firstname.lastname@example.org>
you not only declare a certificate or origin, you also grant a specific commercial entity (HP. Not any WebOS non-profit) the right to do whatever it wanted with your code.
I hope this indicates stupidity.
Posted Sep 1, 2012 9:48 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Oh seriously come on. http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
Posted Sep 1, 2012 19:21 UTC (Sat) by rfontana (subscriber, #52677)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds