Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

Hi,

Adding some FSF and Conservancy people to the CC (see below for Fosdem
related discussion). Bradley, Zoe, Krzysztof, full thread is here:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb/7ac6e62d-1969-41b9-be3f-a2f70344a3eb@simark.ca/T/#u

On Mon, 2025-01-13 at 17:14 +0000, Andrew Burgess via Gdb wrote:
> Luis Machado via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org> writes:
> > On 6/23/24 23:06, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > > > > I just noticed that GDB (and binutils) are currently not accepting
> > > > > DCO's like both glibc
> > > > > (https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#Copyright_and_license)
> > > > > and GCC (https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal) are now accepting.
> > > > > Has there been any talk about accepting DCOs for gdb and binutils? Or
> > > > > has this not been brought up yet?
> > > 
> > > If gcc, glibc, and binutils accept it, then IMO gdb should as well.
> > 
> > Bumping this thread. I noticed there was a mention of aligning gcc/glibc/binutils in terms
> > of DCO text. That made me wonder where we stand regarding DCO for gdb [1], and if we really
> > want to stray from the other toolchain projects by not making a decision on whether we accept
> > it or not.
> > 
> > [1] https://inbox.sourceware.org/binutils/24b26a75-3b3d-4a00-af92-0b7c331e2db7@redhat.com/
> 
> Based on nothing more than remaining consistent with gcc, binutils, and
> glibc, I think we should make the switch to accepting DCO contributions
> under the same terms that binutils uses[2] (as well as accepting FSF
> assigned contributions).
> 
> I'm volunteering myself to add suitable words to the GDB wiki (based off
> the binutils wording), unless anyone objects.  Ideally I'd like a +1
> from a couple of other global maintainers with no serious objections,
> and I'll go ahead and make the change.
> 
> I think that Eli believes the concerns with FSF assignment are
> overblown, and given the information provided, I'm inclined to agree.
> But at this point, with other components accepting DCO, I'm not sure
> that's really relevant.  Unless there's a super compelling reason why
> GDB should diverge ... I think we should fall into line with the other
> components.
> 
> [2] https://sourceware.org/binutils/wiki/HowToContribute

I kind of agree with Eli. The current contribution policy is pretty
clear. But people seem to be constantly confused about the exact
"rules" of using a DCO and Copyright "ownership".

Specifically what it means for company disclaimers. With the current
process it is clear the FSF will take care of that. With a DCO it
suddenly becomes the responsibility of the individual employees to make
sure the company agrees to them submitting to the project.

That doesn't mean we cannot use a DCO, but it should probably come with
much more explanation and guidance (examples) than what is in the
Binutils wiki.

Are there people going to Fosdem? Krzysztof, the FSF Licensing and
Compliance Manager is holding a panel with GNU maintainers on "Managing
copyrights in free software projects" which seems really relevant to
this discussion:

https://fosdem.org/2025/schedule/event/fosdem-2025-5376-managing-copyrights-in-free-software-projects-discussion-panel-with-gnu-maintainers/

Cheers,

Mark