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 3143D138334 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 14:25:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E097CE0843; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 14:25:20 +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 A58C4E07EE for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 14:25:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A38ED335DB3 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 14:25:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy [v3] To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <23325.35685.793702.267278@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <23337.15822.698153.812236@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: <833318c1-a337-d023-1722-8b3dda6411a3@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 10:25:03 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.0 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 690f2a1a-fbf5-456b-8149-49636598504f X-Archives-Hash: 72aaac8f3e4de41f796b3d4a0aa37212 The Gentoo Certificate of origin says, > By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: > > 1 The contribution was created in whole or in part by me... > > 2 The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of > my knowledge, is covered... > > 3 The contribution is a license text (or a file of similar nature)... > > 4 The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person > who certified (1), (2), (3), or (4), and I have not modified it. Do we really want to allow (4)s all the way down? That issue aside, I have some doubts about the usefulness of asserting (4), which to me sounds like the opposite of what is intended: "someone gave it to me and he said it was fine" is a weird defense. Especially if the name of the person doesn't appear in the sign-off. I realize we might not be able to do much better in the case of e.g. patches from outside contributors, but shouldn't we at least record the person's name in that case? If there's ever a dispute, we might need to track the guy down. I also realize that (4) was taken directly from the DCO which presumably has had actual lawyers look at it, so take this with a grain of salt.