| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:55 AM kuzetsa <kuzetsa@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> "Gentoo Developer's Certificate of Origin" - shouldn't |
| 4 |
> the author / contributor themselves be involved in this? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It already requires this. The committer would have to certify: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
" (4) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person |
| 10 |
who certified (1), (2), (3), or (4), and I have not modified it." |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
(or one of the other items in the list, if they did modify it) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Ultimately the committer is the person Gentoo has a relationship with, |
| 15 |
so they need to make the certification when they make the commit, even |
| 16 |
if it is just certifying that somebody else certified it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This goes along with something Thomas said earlier - ultimately the |
| 19 |
committers are responsible for what they commit. There really isn't a |
| 20 |
sane alternative since the whole reason we try to control our |
| 21 |
committers is to ensure that things don't end up in the repository |
| 22 |
which shouldn't be there. This isn't diminishing the value of 3rd |
| 23 |
party contributors - but simply affirming the value-add of having |
| 24 |
somebody we know actually look at what is being contributed. That |
| 25 |
includes the copyright/license and not just the code. After all, all |
| 26 |
this stuff ends up on all our users's systems so we want to protect |
| 27 |
them as well as ourselves. Users already have the freedom to use any |
| 28 |
overlays they wish if they value these things differently. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives