From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A556F138334 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 15:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0BE5CE096C; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 15:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D272CE096C for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 15:41:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15 (host2092.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 165A3335C8F; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 15:41:54 +0000 (UTC) From: Ulrich Mueller To: Alec Warner Cc: gentoo-nfp Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Please vote on this proposal related to http://bugs.gentoo.org/667602 References: Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 17:41:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Alec Warner's message of "Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:14:29 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 74242dab-0a50-4652-9e83-1f17067a40a4 X-Archives-Hash: 8820d1fb325543d6c27c7e2dc2933811 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain >>>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2018, Alec Warner wrote: > The bug requests that a reprieve be granted until the company reviews > the new policy and (hopefully) grants approval. This would be in the > form of an allowlist where specific identities (approved by some > delegate of council && trustees) do not require an SoB line to commit > for some period of time. Does this imply that whitelisted developers are exempt from the copyright policy altogether? Or are they expected to follow all other aspects of the copyright policy, with the Signed-off-by line being the only exception? Please clarify. Ulrich --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEZlHkP3TnuTbxrN0HwwkGhRxhwnMFAlu2NLoACgkQwwkGhRxh wnO5tQgAi3B/cmKDTdTRdRcT7T1hW7OSDNcC96q0ecPshDJWKwnpECzwfrIkv+6t 3QU+Qr++FWWW9t9R9d5F6L00gqR2/ll/5DDmVJnMbtC4eBIEP/RV1p4dBHeCQ4Xz p30nqCOnCCA50OJg1e5sZTriRc6V6I1c0V5C0Irx9FcLT8/CBzWk5TLs7dRe+s/0 Am2s+jfTBGdmiXzenbdRStqIKSOCJuiX3UTnnk1xEL01tG1+5D97s3YJNXXRe6A+ 4TRVI6/fFHLqeddM5qC7n4XOqojPhR4h8ciu7xP3rWZCZnGYRnvqunKFwgznn+hY zse4xuuv+wGzST+4cJXUdHTojrLgJg== =reaI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--