> I cannot agree to the D-C-O in good faith, since it speaks of
> open source licenses, a group of licenses that include non-free
> software licenses, something which I cannot support.
If you can't sign off on it, then Junio shouldn't take it, since
you're basically saying that you cannot say that you own the
copyrights or cannot license it under the appropriate copyright.
That is not what I am saying. In either case, I already explained why
I cannot agree to the DCO above. And you are right, Junio shouldn't
apply the patch if it goes against commit policies.
Yes, it speaks of "open source licenses", but it says: "under the
open source license indicated in the file", and "appropriate open
source license".
That is a good point, almost none of the files in git specify the
license so it is impossible to know what one is actually agreeing too.
I would suggest the following update to the DCO, it makes it more
general both to free software hackers, and open source hackers alike.
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.2-draft
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
have the right to submit it under the license indicated in the
file; or
(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
of my knowledge, is covered under an compatible license and I
have the right under that license to submit that work with
modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under
the same license (unless I am permitted to submit under a
different license), as indicated in the file; or
(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it.
(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
this project or the license(s) involved.