Re: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 11:44:21 EDT, "La Monte H.P. Yarroll" said:

> I THINK I have a case not covered here. I sometimes need to post unpublished
> work done by other people at my company. Since the work is not yet 
> published,
> the GPL doesn't really grant me any special rights. The authorization I use
> to publish is in fact NOT an open source license. I think clause (b) could
> probably be weakened to cover my case.

Hmm.. I'm missing something here.

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

b) The patches you're releasing aren't GPL'able because they're in some way
encumbered by a licensing issue.

In either case, we need to clarify and fix the problem, totally separate from
the DCO issue (all *that* does is that if somebody points out a problem with a
patch of yours down the road, we know to ask *you* about it....)

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature