On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:49:07AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 03:23:28PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > I actually thought about something like this as a different way of
> > doing section 7. But I haven't thought about it too concretely until
> > reading your message. The problem with the kernel's version of the DCO
> > is it's kind of verbose. :)
>
> And here I thought attorneys love verbiage. I can see good attorneys
> prefer only just the amount of verbiage necessary ;)
Well, if someone was interested in opening a discussion with the LF's
lawyers about a proposal to reduce the DCO's verbosity, that would be
great. Personally, I don't think it's too verbose.
Indeed, it's quite compact especially when you compare it to certain
alternatives. I once created a modified version of the DCO for a
project that (IIRC) made it a little shorter by combining two of its
clauses into one. It might seem verbose if it were to be incorporated
wholesale into an otherwise relatively-small license document, though,
and I'm not sure how valuable that would be.
- RF