1 |
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 7:22 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021, Andrew Ammerlaan wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > So if we allow contributions without a sign-off from the contributor |
6 |
> > the sign-off from the developer is meaningless since neither 1, 2, 3, |
7 |
> > or 4 applies to the commit. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> if there's even the slightest chance that the contribution could be |
10 |
> taken from proprietary software, you are well-advised _not_ to accept it |
11 |
> unless it carries a sign-off of its contributor. |
12 |
|
13 |
In the US at least (and probably most countries), ALL code is |
14 |
proprietary, unless the author of the code has released it under an |
15 |
open source license. |
16 |
|
17 |
If the original contributor hasn't signed off on the DCO, or somehow |
18 |
otherwise communicated how they have licensed it, under what basis |
19 |
would you conclude that it isn't anything other than proprietary |
20 |
software? At best you'd have to determine whether the contribution is |
21 |
so trivial as to not be copyrightable, and that seems like a road we |
22 |
wouldn't want to go down. (Note: copyrightable patches to GPL |
23 |
software are not automatically GPL, even if they are illegal to |
24 |
distribute under anything other than the GPL. The author STILL has to |
25 |
actively license it under the GPL, otherwise it basically becomes |
26 |
non-distributable due to license conflict.) |
27 |
|
28 |
Now, whether we want to require real names/etc from outside |
29 |
contributors is another matter. |
30 |
|
31 |
Part of the purpose of the DCO is to be a streamlined way for |
32 |
contributors to communicate the copyright status of their |
33 |
contributions. If we're not going to accept pseudonyms there, then it |
34 |
doesn't make sense to instead accept them using non-standard wording |
35 |
in random emails that are themselves backed only by a pseudonym, or |
36 |
random non-logged conversations. If we are going to want committers |
37 |
to somehow confirm that the contributor has made the contribution FOSS |
38 |
then we might as well just have the contributors sign the DCO however |
39 |
they wish since that at least systematically captures this event. |
40 |
|
41 |
I'd suggest maybe clarifying that the real-name requirement only |
42 |
applies to committers, and that the 4 elements of the DCO always |
43 |
apply, and the 4th element can be accomplished by having the |
44 |
contributor sign the DCO however they wish. Basically that would be |
45 |
the status quo in terms of what is actually going on, as I understand |
46 |
it. |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Rich |