From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id ZwOHEG1OhWehzg0AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:33:33 -0500 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=eyTlllNA; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 36BDC1E100; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:33:33 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED 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 76C2D1E05C for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:33:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E2C3857BB3 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:33:31 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E4E2C3857BB3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1736789611; bh=b3xP9jAiDnZB4Gx4H/kOtf8UbqqVCUp67CCAWUfp47I=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=eyTlllNAWCLdDKWns2Q8kVvIfac42XzKeJ7S1GS9B38bBSAQ59azjmYX4zRHT2dQa Iv7LOkQrXgk+Wn4rGZVbcLrxVynW1cHhrSYb7s1ANwp0FwAM0B65aCxuR0Iu5KtNIW cR5fQD+6nKuymk5vgYpSYZyapo2IFKhvhQGquPFw= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA3CB3857B8C for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:32:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org DA3CB3857B8C ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org DA3CB3857B8C ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1736789551; cv=none; b=bxc5lnG1wNLLzC+Teo9YmlYNXr8SMum4+eCqTBrKi1tssZqgu2Um6aAdq5ceqpDqCZ6lGFleMOrnoW4p7IirZeM/vYnNGJCatLC5ODcVRmLK6kOEzhHDfg228fuOaBnKhqOYHW7NyXzE80Ptc/C7WCJA8DzDb6aTg2Xlx/U2aP8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1736789551; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Z30OYu+cTZFMAbKcUi7t6KOz3z9V25L5Y0Y3QRMfyWg=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:Message-Id:From:To:Subject; b=XMU9dh+tN567Tm0e+f1gLNPcRPTJMs0Z8L5CWCygXyCkNdFHiZrZUQ1HV4WvUjiIkwX1UpzcqUYsoMdYa84v0JFTvksF2QLli8wY7vaHruqU/77bWhNzwKQ43b9jWs+yP5RdJsUr/AV2OapX5XXeOHl5wFz5s+txM+gmge5AGx0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DA3CB3857B8C Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tXOIe-0006WO-F9; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:32:29 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 19:32:22 +0200 Message-Id: <86bjwavcux.fsf@gnu.org> To: Andrew Burgess Cc: luis.machado@arm.com, tom@tromey.com, blarsen@redhat.com, pinskia@gmail.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87tta2r5z2.fsf@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Burgess on Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:14:41 +0000) Subject: Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb References: <86538dac-6c3a-4b9e-9de9-3906e645fa4d@redhat.com> <87y16vwbzl.fsf@tromey.com> <74c8b867-f5bb-48f7-9849-11d06e63a3d7@arm.com> <87tta2r5z2.fsf@redhat.com> 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: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" > From: Andrew Burgess > Cc: Andrew Pinski , GDB Development , > Eli Zaretskii > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:14:41 +0000 > > 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. I mostly fear that by accepting DCOs we will open ourselves to contributions from people who are not authorized to contribute their code (e.g., it was copied from somewhere, or their employment contract makes all their code the property of their employer, or something of that nature). DCO makes it much easier to submit code based on incorrect understanding of what the DCO text says, so the probability for honest mistakes is higher than with CA.