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 CC422138334 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:16:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83E88E0A45; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:16:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 30540E0A07 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:16:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [185.31.167.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bircoph) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12825335D26 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:16:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:16:15 +0300 From: Andrew Savchenko To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy [v4] Message-Id: <20181003221615.88d543bde07109aae55e38c8@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: References: <23325.35685.793702.267278@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <23337.15822.698153.812236@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <14e33478-835e-33ec-5d68-5ccb05fb2a9d@gmail.com> <72d18d67-1c32-33dd-8b62-fd7b3bdeba3c@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA512"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__3_Oct_2018_22_16_16_+0300_d/gOBYc6EF=Rat3k" X-Archives-Salt: fd85f7f1-7f41-4448-bc07-341d992ea4bf X-Archives-Hash: 3ac2e7b7103d28689b6689b676d26595 --Signature=_Wed__3_Oct_2018_22_16_16_+0300_d/gOBYc6EF=Rat3k Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:48:18 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2018, NP-Hardass wrote: > > UNLESS you think this falls under #2: > > "The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my > > knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license, and I > > have the right under that license to submit that work with > > modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the same > > free software license (unless I am permitted to submit under a different > > license), as indicated in the file; or" > > Which, as written, means that the committer must make a modifications to > > the pseudonymous work to qualify as "[FOSS licensed and] created in > > whole or in part by me." >=20 > That wording has be copied from the Linux DCO. Presumably it would be > clearer if it said "submit that work with or without modifications". > If unmodified distribution/submission was not allowed, the license > wouldn't qualify as a free software license, in the first place. >=20 > > The premise of which is that pseudonymous contributions aren't allowed > > unless the author submits it as a patch, not using a VCS (as > > contributions via VCS must use the Certificate of Origin), and the > > committer makes some trivial modification to them, and then, by magic, > > we avoid requirements for real names. >=20 > See above, the right to distribute the work with modifications doesn't > preclude its distribution without modifications. >=20 > The only problem I see is that usually it would not be very polite to > sign off someone else's work. However, I don't think there is a real > problem with that, as long as the committer can confirm that the > contribution is under a free software license. Sign-off usually means "I have reviewed this commit and approve it". This is how it works in the Linux kernel where one have to collect sufficient number of sign-offs to pass commit in the main tree. An attempt to give it another meaning like "I'm the author of this commit" looks questionable. Of course DCO certification is fine as well. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko --Signature=_Wed__3_Oct_2018_22_16_16_+0300_d/gOBYc6EF=Rat3k Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE63ZIHsdeM+1XgNer9lNaM7oe5I0FAlu1FYAACgkQ9lNaM7oe 5I00fRAApj0I64E4E4wBXXathUkVISIRTSezWpcKGrAAd4VeqBSU6gD/jd59cJ1z Ds16oPLRr/35VkOvN62o7EYosJlbNIqQ2+YNiUfGd14OVezE4FQ6GEK+T3wUh84z L6yVf9tLl2Igfda/d4cIcRqRCHH7xPpimU9BsV+siHMjy31VJrZrJxwFG+UIPnM6 c7xNTdVoYgw2YKP3OoxhJhg4ZZwo5MiCJz7ifoJKYU3RFWR0d1IOPjbZcNyzNhyY uMlszn/elu5E/fx0ucZzcNahbDf/dEKwA90bkyBIX8rov6/mtnC2f6KajqjnkTJt C8ZIdChK9k4wft0s0Q8Tb1/KwU7B+PPUbqRxImeC5mq5E8rywhc6wJu+HdSSajNX vv8pBwxuC77AqWG7M1Iyxavy+zQsI4EU16x142BDzmyEL0DWRh9mblz107oDI9Aw xufPthuZ2QRhLBmxHpWGuSb7Gny316WWayhAteeY+pSlr7ewlZVxpo4deXNJAmGO 2TxnSqqBGjVa2P9eqL7emL6hZDrVB5iFTKK+rLvv0pHyOWEkBasGbVdSf/K89wiV D6MWLc7zSHsoLy8a9hR6lCSJAnW3pUIlYnUVQ+ohGCxg0+7uYdY/mh/8eEB50Y2Y aMIrCNuBXqmUbacMemDfnL39Z3l1PqLIBdjtoE38NU38VNXY428= =FApL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__3_Oct_2018_22_16_16_+0300_d/gOBYc6EF=Rat3k--