From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id tpHsAu5Th2f4pg8AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 01:21:34 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id F31981E100; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 01:21:33 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, 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 1E5861E08E for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 01:21:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1DD33851154 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:21:32 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B1DD33851154 Received: from angie.orcam.me.uk (angie.orcam.me.uk [78.133.224.34]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17646385DC27 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:20:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 17646385DC27 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=orcam.me.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=orcam.me.uk ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 17646385DC27 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=78.133.224.34 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1736922048; cv=none; b=daN+IHBpdGypSyXav3flM2EBqhiAzoeBnBptKy1bT9tJsXVF4ncDDo9jr+Fq4+JobQ6NlS+WKUaEApH1gaaIJjKHUeQru9E2q1dF68+PriB8dwfRzPACY6eJrFCySYnK9eyJHXZzp8wHy8KAjCJm0bQ1LYiLmoEM1IcNHpvFl1A= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1736922048; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EoTMQVEh/suMaB5ctBx7hf827oNqs8F+HQoT2tYio+I=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=CWhYKwZ1Gwv6Lq312GrdqlJjY6ZW5KPvOMrMqr5YiAsn6R9XQY0m6dLd2Rp/fLrzTTjVdfCj5j7aVjvVxIhFEwiZjRMrzLlJOcOBMZjjSYVgrF4s357twZ1iKhB08jbCtbTt/0UbZZv96/V+o0LUvStDZgJxN8qdTCIQipvNw4w= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 17646385DC27 Received: by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2FE4E92009C; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:20:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B7692009B; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:20:47 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:20:47 +0000 (GMT) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Luis Machado cc: Andrew Burgess , Tom Tromey , Guinevere Larsen , Andrew Pinski , GDB Development , Eli Zaretskii , Pedro Alves , Nick Clifton Subject: Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb In-Reply-To: <00ba936a-6aa9-4d1d-8b1a-b5459b696289@arm.com> Message-ID: References: <86538dac-6c3a-4b9e-9de9-3906e645fa4d@redhat.com> <87y16vwbzl.fsf@tromey.com> <74c8b867-f5bb-48f7-9849-11d06e63a3d7@arm.com> <87tta2r5z2.fsf@redhat.com> <00ba936a-6aa9-4d1d-8b1a-b5459b696289@arm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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: , Errors-To: gdb-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On Tue, 14 Jan 2025, Luis Machado via Gdb wrote: > While I agree having gdb be the sole bureaucratic entity not accepting DCO > with the other GNU tools projects accepting it (in particular because we > share code with binutils, so technically we'd have to make a joint decision), > DCO's don't seem to come for free, as we need to track each and every one of > those contributions so we can refer back to them when/if we ever decide to > update/switch licenses or if a legal problem arises. It happened with QEMU once, 10+ years ago, and a considerable amount of code had to be pulled out just because the original contributors couldn't be chased. I don't have a reference handy, but surely the event can be tracked. > Also, I've seen DCO's being sold partially as a mechanism that doesn't require > contributors to share personal information, due to privacy concerns. I don't > think that is true from my reading of it, given we absolutely need to know > how to reach out to the contributor/employer of the contributor in case the > need arises. And that is not even considering things like the contributor > passing away, disappearing etc. It did happen with said QEMU relicensing and a former colleague of mine who had passed away. While I was absolutely certain he wouldn't mind he wasn't available anymore to speak out. Maciej