| 1 |
On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 15:35:58 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2018, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >> This also requires that they use their real name for signing; an |
| 5 |
> >> anonymous certification or one under a pseudonym would not mean |
| 6 |
> >> anything. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Yes, that's the rationale. We can simply forget about the whole |
| 9 |
> copyright policy effort, if we don't require committers to certify |
| 10 |
> their contributions under their real name. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > I don't like this. We have anonymous developers right now (at least |
| 13 |
> > their names are not public even in LDAP). The cited requirement will |
| 14 |
> > effectively kick them from the project. Moreover we have contributors |
| 15 |
> > considering to become developers who prefer to keep their anonymity. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> According to recruitment policy [1] (which is in place since 2004 [2] |
| 18 |
> at least), there cannot be any anonymous developers doing copyrightable |
| 19 |
> work: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> # Real names must be provided for all developers, including |
| 22 |
> # infrastructure and documentation. Any exceptions to this for |
| 23 |
> # extenuating circumstances will be considered on a case-by-case |
| 24 |
> # basis. No exceptions will be made for people doing copyrightable |
| 25 |
> # work (ebuilds, software, scripts, documentation, etc.). |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> AFAICS, the GLEP will only confirm the existing policy there. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Real names must be provided != must be publicly available. The |
| 30 |
current status is that they are in LDAP, but not viewable outside |
| 31 |
of recruiters (and maybe some other limited groups). What you are |
| 32 |
proposing demands public availability, so it can be seen as an extra |
| 33 |
requirement compared to GLEP. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives