[GnuPG] DCO for Werner Koch

[W. Trevor King]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:51:03PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:00, wking at tremily.us said:
> > DCO proliferation, it would be nice if we could avoid pointless
> > changes.  Do you think the change is meaningful?
> 
> Yes, the GNU project prefers the term Free Software over the later
> coined term Open Source.  For a detailed description see
> http://fsfe.org/documents/whyfs .

Thanks for the pointer.  Comparing the four features listed for free
software:

* run the program, for any purpose.
* study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
* redistribute copies.
* improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so
  that the whole community benefits.

with the listed features for open source software [1], I don't see
much of a distinction (but I'm not a lawyer).

The original DCO avoids the need to define “open source license” by
qualifying it to mean “the license indicated in the file being
patched” or “the open source license(s) involved”.  I agree that if
you were going to write a DCO from scratch, using “free software”
would be fine, but since the “open source” version already exists, I
don't see the point of changing it.  Can you point me towards a
license that qualifies as “open source” but not as “free software” (or
vice versa)?

Thanks,
Trevor

p.s. I like thinking about licenses, but I realize that this feeling
is not universal ;).  Feel free to tell me that the change is not open
to discussion and I'll stop asking about it.

[1]: http://opensource.org/docs/osd

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20130329/0830ea70/attachment.sig>