| 1 |
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:48:18 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018, NP-Hardass wrote: |
| 3 |
> > UNLESS you think this falls under #2: |
| 4 |
> > "The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my |
| 5 |
> > knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license, and I |
| 6 |
> > have the right under that license to submit that work with |
| 7 |
> > modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the same |
| 8 |
> > free software license (unless I am permitted to submit under a different |
| 9 |
> > license), as indicated in the file; or" |
| 10 |
> > Which, as written, means that the committer must make a modifications to |
| 11 |
> > the pseudonymous work to qualify as "[FOSS licensed and] created in |
| 12 |
> > whole or in part by me." |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> That wording has be copied from the Linux DCO. Presumably it would be |
| 15 |
> clearer if it said "submit that work with or without modifications". |
| 16 |
> If unmodified distribution/submission was not allowed, the license |
| 17 |
> wouldn't qualify as a free software license, in the first place. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> > The premise of which is that pseudonymous contributions aren't allowed |
| 20 |
> > unless the author submits it as a patch, not using a VCS (as |
| 21 |
> > contributions via VCS must use the Certificate of Origin), and the |
| 22 |
> > committer makes some trivial modification to them, and then, by magic, |
| 23 |
> > we avoid requirements for real names. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> See above, the right to distribute the work with modifications doesn't |
| 26 |
> preclude its distribution without modifications. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> The only problem I see is that usually it would not be very polite to |
| 29 |
> sign off someone else's work. However, I don't think there is a real |
| 30 |
> problem with that, as long as the committer can confirm that the |
| 31 |
> contribution is under a free software license. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Sign-off usually means "I have reviewed this commit and approve it". |
| 34 |
This is how it works in the Linux kernel where one have to collect |
| 35 |
sufficient number of sign-offs to pass commit in the main tree. An |
| 36 |
attempt to give it another meaning like "I'm the author of this |
| 37 |
commit" looks questionable. Of course DCO certification is fine as |
| 38 |
well. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Best regards, |
| 41 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives