Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb

[Eli Zaretskii via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>]

> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:57:41 -0300
> Cc: GDB Development <gdb@sourceware.org>, binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
> From: Guinevere Larsen via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>
> 
> On 6/17/24 12:00 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 5:23 AM Guinevere Larsen via Gdb
> > <gdb@sourceware.org> wrote:
> >> Just a heads up, too, if your patch isn't a trivial fix, you might need
> >> to sign a bit of paperwork giving the copyright of changes to GDB to the
> >> Free Software Foundation before we are able to accept the changes. I
> >> mention this up front because I know a few people who were turned off by
> >> the idea, even though the process itself isn't complicated.
> > 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?
> 
> I haven't heard of it yet, every time I see a new contributor with a 
> patch accepted, the copyright assignment is always the way everyone 
> uses, and it has stalled the last release.
> 
> I for one would absolutely love if we could use a quick DCO line instead 
> of current process.

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.