Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb

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

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:18 AM Guinevere Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/24 1:45 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 13:37:56 -0300
> >> Cc: pinskia@gmail.com, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org
> >> From: Guinevere Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> 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?
>
> Yes. What they didn't want is to do is review an actual legal contract
> and sign it, even before knowing you need to give personal information
> that I am personally uncomfortable giving over the internet to an
> unknown person for a hobby project.
>
> If I am ever not working for someone who has a blanket copyright
> assignment, I'll likely stop contributing code based on that. (I don't
> mean it as a threat since, as things stand, I plan on continuing to work
> professionally on GDB indefinitely, it is just a relevant fact for this
> conversation).

The main reason why I brought this up because I know in the near
future (within a year) I will be wanting to help improve/implementing
GDB for aarch64 windows and currently my employer (Qualcomm) does not
have a blanket copyright right assignment and has been ok with the DCO
for submitting patches for GCC and glibc. So this will definitely get
in the way for me here.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

>
> >
> > 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.
> Another problem with this system, then, is scalability. Yes, we don't
> have huge swaths of people eagerly waiting to contribute to GDB, but if
> it is hard enough for regular contributors to find time to review
> patches, where is the time for someone who understands completely the
> copyright assignment to mentor prospective contributors before they are
> turned away when they read that this is a requirement in the
> contribution checklist?
> >
> >> 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".
> Could you explain the risks? Not only I am not a lawyer, I have an extra
> large blindspot with regards to copyright law.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> I would like to change the current system, but I don't have all the
> information, so I think it would be beneficial for us to discuss this so
> that we don't rely on any one person's personal preference, and instead
> choose what is best for the project.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guinevere Larsen
> She/Her/Hers
>