Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo git workflows and the stabilization/keywording process

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:27 PM, W. Trevor King <wking@×××××××.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:13:35PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King <wking@×××××××.us> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> >> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files
>> >> themselves were not modified - not the commit message.
>> >
>> > The DCO text is verbatim copies only [1], so I don't think
>> > adjusting clauses is legal.
>>
>> I copied it from /usr/src/linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> which is GPLv2, as far as I can tell.
>
> Luis R. Rodriguez and I spent some time trying to track this down with
> the authors while I was factoring the signed-off-by documentation out
> into a stand-alone repository [1,2].  There was some debate about
> whether the text was copyrightable, but the explicit copyright claim
> and license on the Linux Foundation's DCO page [3] settles it for me.

Great to hear that it settles it for you, but as far as I can tell,
the Linux Foundation has released it under the GPL and continues to do
so to this day.  I suppose they can sue me if they don't agree, not
that I can see why they would want to.  :)

>
>> > Personally, I don't think the maintainer appending their s-o-b to
>> > the user's commit is all that important (certainly not worth
>> > blowing away the user's signature) when they can just sign and
>> > s-o-b an explicit merge commit.
>>
>> Agree.  No need to modify the original commit.
>
> So the policy in the wiki should be:
>
>   “Don't clobber the user's signature on a commit, even to add your
>   Signed-off-by.  Instead, explicitly merge signed user commits, or
>   have the user reroll the commit with your tweaks and re-sign it.”

I disagree with this.

I have no objections to keeping the original commit.  However, I do
object to requiring that the original commit being preserved.

--
Rich