On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 09:10:44AM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote: > > I.e., why are we sure that it is OK for us to loosen this requirement > > (without jeopardizing the legal status of contributions). And I think > > the answer is along the lines of "the kernel did it, and they checked > > with lawyers, so we can piggy-back on that work". But it would be nice > > if we could cite that source, and maybe even lift some of their > > language. > > > > Looks like the kernel commit here: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=d4563201f33a022fc0353033d9dfeb1606a88330 > > > > cites CNCF here: > > > > https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/659fd32c86dc/dco-guidelines.md > > > > I don't know if there's any public discussion or statement from the > > Linux Foundation or other legal folks on the kernel's wording. > > The commit is "Acked-by: Michael Dolan <mdolan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>", > which seems to be a lawyer at LF, e.g., as per Ted's post elsewhere in > this thread. So that could be seen as some kind of statement. Yeah, I agree (and didn't know that before; thanks for mentioning). I think mostly I was just hoping that some of this reasoning and these pointers would make it into the commit message. The content of the patch looked OK to me, though I do still like the CNCF wording a bit better. -Peff
