From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id rf9wKoIzimcfLBIAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:40:02 -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=Z+u9+b1E; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 85B631E100; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:40:02 -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 7FFE51E08E for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:40:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1332C384A41A for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:40:01 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1332C384A41A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1737110401; bh=OqujQ74PxSM7EpGlSU0VDNHwBGCCdcBYgf0eCaiGlIg=; h=To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=Z+u9+b1Eul3Vef7xtEusW++36segWWZJR4YCdt+UF/gJsGgQiyReWE+Dj7/uLxWg8 8ezjfTXW78FBATX8aDZGj6obXlZu6+BRJMGVnCDTtmxFdMCYyktGex6HjjvFa142yc zJDV/rhP8t1baqT0IllQ46AQgq9ud0zQZ7WEEQT0= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46152384A404 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:38:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 46152384A404 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 46152384A404 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1737110285; cv=none; b=HDAI15FtXtF8NACtxEYzcuT8b0QBcv2Oz7E3PlAhWCiAsJDKxqMowDTeZWqM/P9zdurkI9tvBjcHdekmPXoc86nQdNy2haT5E5HGN+vTvbn4YWtvUsULC5LAcaZ+QzCLqX+y0hiIUvbQkJFIMNbPwVKna1qd3jnQmEuj8e0Rdu8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1737110285; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XqXzRZnN3323mbKqL2P7w5fl97mPpFPZ73ixBy8bEqw=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=GjeQBJtB4O1L5Zj0UXy40lBVW0seJWgiKvMg4FExK0ai/ExOy6bcWBEjK4fgLipYQjFD0GtDEt/hwM2t/4Wi0Tkljvur7LR01H7uNKTzzqxR3gkQyCR6+Wr+UkaHiGlP9z5yxogdrS/ofXBFu30urVVpR7i9TCztyXA3JXzAJ+Y= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 46152384A404 Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-169-yLm_iz7LMveB52GpFm7U6Q-1; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:38:01 -0500 X-MC-Unique: yLm_iz7LMveB52GpFm7U6Q-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: yLm_iz7LMveB52GpFm7U6Q Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B7EE19560B0; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg3.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.194.110]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40B5730001BE; Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:37:57 +0000 (UTC) To: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb Cc: Andrew Burgess , Eli Zaretskii , luis.machado@arm.com, tom@tromey.com, blarsen@redhat.com, pinskia@gmail.com Subject: Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb In-Reply-To: <86bjwavcux.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii via Gdb's message of "Mon, 13 Jan 2025 19:32:22 +0200") References: <86538dac-6c3a-4b9e-9de9-3906e645fa4d@redhat.com> <87y16vwbzl.fsf@tromey.com> <74c8b867-f5bb-48f7-9849-11d06e63a3d7@arm.com> <87tta2r5z2.fsf@redhat.com> <86bjwavcux.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:37:54 +0100 Message-ID: <87o705wwsd.fsf@oldenburg3.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: 9036Q2lA_Mzi2trRnDckzSyEJnxxmQqxjPMcI2d1zZY_1737110280 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain 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: Florian Weimer via Gdb Reply-To: Florian Weimer Errors-To: gdb-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" * Eli Zaretskii via 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. It is possible that someone signs a copyright assignment without being authorized to do so, which is exactly the same problem. As far as I know, the FSF doesn't verify that the signer has been authorized by the organization that owns the rights. In general, this can be quite difficult to do. Whether that's more or less likely to happen than a DCO mis-submission is hard to tell. Thanks, Florian