| 1 |
On Mar 11, 2013 6:22 PM, "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 02:19:55PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:51:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > If you have any concerns/objections to the policy which was outlined, |
| 6 |
> > > which includes a mandatory requirement to sign a contributor license |
| 7 |
> > > agreement and an option to also sign an assignment-like document based |
| 8 |
> > > on the FSFe FLA, please speak up this week. |
| 9 |
> > I've already said this before, but I guess I need to say it again: |
| 10 |
> > If a contributor license is required to be signed, I'll have to |
| 11 |
> > stop contributing to Gentoo. |
| 12 |
> Did you read the entire email? We explicitly listed one of the options |
| 13 |
> as (voluntary FLA/CLA AND mandatory DCO). |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Could you clarify that you're objecting to that as well? In your case, |
| 16 |
> you could elect NOT to sign the FLA/CLA. Regardless, all of your commits |
| 17 |
> would have the DCO SoB signature. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The kernel is where we got the mandatory DCO concept. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This one is my bad. I wrote CLA when I meant DCO. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
No change intended. This is what happens when you send a thirty second |
| 24 |
follow-up to a policy formed over two weeks, and then step away to eat... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
But, at least we know people read it! |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives