Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] glep-0076: add clarification about the sign-off requirements

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021, Andrew Ammerlaan wrote:

> 4 applies, but here's the catch. It only applies if the contributor
> has also included a sign-off.

Exactly.

> So if we allow contributions without a sign-off from the contributor
> the sign-off from the developer is meaningless since neither 1, 2, 3,
> or 4 applies to the commit.

Typically, the committer would certify the contribution under 2. It's
the same situation when adding a patch taken from somewhere else, you
must certify it's free software "to the best of [your] knowledge".

So if there's even the slightest chance that the contribution could be
taken from proprietary software, you are well-advised _not_ to accept it
unless it carries a sign-off of its contributor.

> Which brings me to my second point. As far as I know, pseudonyms can
> in fact hold (and therefore transfer and sign-off) copyright. There
> are many examples of books and other texts written by authors using a
> different name then their 'legal name'. Such texts are not treated
> (fundamentally) different under copyright law simply because the
> author chose to use a pseudonym. Now a book is not an ebuild, but why
> wouldn't the same apply here?

This isn't about defending the copyright of the contributor (for which
a pseudonym would be fine, or at least it would be a problem of the
contributor). It is about due diligence when accepting contributions,
to make sure their origin is traceable. 

Ulrich