Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb

[Andrew Burgess via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>]

Luis Machado via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On 6/23/24 23:06, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>> 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?
>> 
>> If gcc, glibc, and binutils accept it, then IMO gdb should as well.
>> 
>> Tom
>
> Bumping this thread. I noticed there was a mention of aligning gcc/glibc/binutils in terms
> of DCO text. That made me wonder where we stand regarding DCO for gdb [1], and if we really
> want to stray from the other toolchain projects by not making a decision on whether we accept
> it or not.
>
> [1] https://inbox.sourceware.org/binutils/24b26a75-3b3d-4a00-af92-0b7c331e2db7@redhat.com/

Based on nothing more than remaining consistent with gcc, binutils, and
glibc, I think we should make the switch to accepting DCO contributions
under the same terms that binutils uses[2] (as well as accepting FSF
assigned contributions).

I'm volunteering myself to add suitable words to the GDB wiki (based off
the binutils wording), unless anyone objects.  Ideally I'd like a +1
from a couple of other global maintainers with no serious objections,
and I'll go ahead and make the change.

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.

[2] https://sourceware.org/binutils/wiki/HowToContribute

Thanks,
Andrew