From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id BKPHIYkqjWf4khQAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2025 11:38:33 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7C3811E100; Sun, 19 Jan 2025 11:38:33 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 942E51E08E for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2025 11:38:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9053858D38 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:38:32 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1B9053858D38 Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E89D43858D21 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:37:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org E89D43858D21 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org E89D43858D21 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=45.83.234.184 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1737304675; cv=none; b=qKHxpAlejfIZ3obc5FfXE/I4drdMj/RfYfDfS9UDHHrYinjN2OCpw1drJ4l1VSPR3Bxhj4U7aRpi4TrQovm53MDgmlh7xWHfnxeeLBN4HPPBTMaaud1DnXhhukjo9odCqCOX1muncbfZma6aVVHAJAag8cqvJg+1iDt9zb/cdkE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1737304675; c=relaxed/simple; bh=W7gp74badeTLdQL/7z6X/R+ffL/hdjJQ/LktlzTo1iI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Jw1aGULdglh7Ns30R+J9rRH2eHiZm6WRZoqV+/xGwUxk3t6oF0qhZmDjwuBpFh/W2foZl+Of0+jLfAgILAlYDENMSdJeCFqtl+OsVcDCbZO+WhXuYpFOMiykKzZ/QFbjmL0GMVKn5BOfIb74rdtjTGYHTTIRm28Cncd4wVgiLPs= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E89D43858D21 Received: by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 19FD03032F85; Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:37:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:37:54 +0100 From: Mark Wielaard To: Florian Weimer Cc: Andrew Burgess , Luis Machado , Tom Tromey , Guinevere Larsen , Andrew Pinski , GDB Development , Eli Zaretskii , "Bradley M. Kuhn" , zoe@fsf.org, ksiewicz@fsf.org Subject: Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb Message-ID: <20250119163754.GR29102@gnu.wildebeest.org> References: <86538dac-6c3a-4b9e-9de9-3906e645fa4d@redhat.com> <87y16vwbzl.fsf@tromey.com> <74c8b867-f5bb-48f7-9849-11d06e63a3d7@arm.com> <87tta2r5z2.fsf@redhat.com> <1fc456f48c4c6f8aa852c911c6234e219a356434.camel@klomp.org> <87jzatwwl0.fsf@oldenburg3.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87jzatwwl0.fsf@oldenburg3.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" Hi Florian, On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 11:42:19AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Mark Wielaard: > > > 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. > > But having a copyright assignment with the FSF does not change that at > all: an individual authorized by an organization to submit contributions > in principle still needs to determine if any particular change can be > contributed according to company rules. Yes, in theory the situation is the same. But in the first case there is an explicit question, while in the second it is implicit. While I think it is fine for the community to rely on either the explicit or implicit company disclaimer provided it seems more honest to be explicit about it. Once the contribution is made the community will rely on the certification made and the company cannot back out anymore. It feels bad "tricking" companies into submissions. So imho it would be good to make that explicitly clear in the explanation, examples or text of the DCO and/or to have an explicit company disclaimer on file like the Samba project does [*]. Cheers, Mark [*] https://www.samba.org/samba/devel/copyright-policy.html