From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 1FoHHF5ocGaFNDsAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:46:22 -0400 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=SfYr9Oi5; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 602B41E0C1; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:46:22 -0400 (EDT) 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 4EC291E030 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:46:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88007388206C for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:46:19 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 88007388206C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1718642779; bh=GJdtrvBIUrTvA12EBLd2MHslYXg+Zc24Htc1KUUYgo8=; 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=SfYr9Oi5herBytuVQ5jGF3yQy1InRoYPu4gqSnzeuXszXwQ+TDhteaYE1Y7i14VzE bncYFoEX7K57Aug6q811ln6piAzzsAya+2HEt97otKMcENKAGamRGPMMWYFY61XvXh yWcPnPzm+cDTbl2cYGt7ZR8H1V4nV3It68SkL5mQ= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 235863858CDA; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:45:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 235863858CDA ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 235863858CDA ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1718642743; cv=none; b=uRhqgGmSyg+AQZddNCM7GLOXIwA0kzzwwqaK7M1veiHTpVIh2sQV67jCMJvioVNrvF8Nhxt+4tAwxq3rNjRs6uP8dkNwJPwJR61LHftSoDqCIvGrSraizIXEqYcpd/FKj+FNgvovQCtnFZ07zRgduTRUt0BfWA5yxdCP892jLtg= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1718642743; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HvtwQtbXQAqZCq/8/gYl4gu086sy1fRF/AC/eKWoHdc=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:Message-Id:From:To:Subject; b=S0MZFWAqZLQ0hIeRqhzUN51V9CurIWoH968Wn+oPzdZ4IJq/K2bY6BLuCAlWmQpE+QZB4ItFcbTyLrwjTaF1Ptktpyje+jHFZluTDC6oCmT8A1/KEXiMviqqpw2Wjn8KhREr3kAM7KEe+ZcQo3kWp2Ru9VFQYb27Vi6Qhl7LTkc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org 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 1sJFUD-0007TC-N3; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:45:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:45:37 +0300 Message-Id: <86r0cvr00e.fsf@gnu.org> To: Guinevere Larsen Cc: pinskia@gmail.com, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <0bd8f510-8782-4052-880c-39232e69b432@redhat.com> (message from Guinevere Larsen on Mon, 17 Jun 2024 13:37:56 -0300) Subject: Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb References: <86538dac-6c3a-4b9e-9de9-3906e645fa4d@redhat.com> <86sexbr0mb.fsf@gnu.org> <0bd8f510-8782-4052-880c-39232e69b432@redhat.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org 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" > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 13:37:56 -0300 > Cc: pinskia@gmail.com, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org > From: Guinevere Larsen > > On 6/17/24 1:32 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > I don't think the risks which come with accepting DCOs are justified > > in GDB at least. The number of one-off contributors to GDB is > > basically zero. > > > I know of 2 people who decided to not contribute to GDB as soon as I > mentioned that there was a copyright process. And with DCOs they were ready to contribute? And who talked to them and made sure they understand completely what copyright assignment means and entails? IME, a large number of people have completely distorted idea about that, and are mightily surprised when told the facts by someone who knows them. > And saying we don't have them is a chicken and egg problem to > me... could it be that we don't have them specifically because the > process is so hostile to this type of contribution? This goes both ways, you know. In contrast to the above, which may or may not be true, the risks associated with accepting DCOs are real, not imaginary and not "maybe". Anyway, I don't see a need to argue. You have expressed your opinion, and I expressed mine. We disagree. It's allowed and is perfectly okay.