[PATCH] Documentation: Rename Samba's DCO to Samba Contributor Representation

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

>> On 15/10/2020 19:05, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical wrote:
>> > I guess I screwed up in calling our Samba contributor agreement a "DCO"
>> > as that's what Linux uses, but ours is different from theirs.
>> > 
>> > In my defense I just thought that's what such things were supposed to
>> > be called.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Rowland penny wrote:
>> Hang on, what is wrong with calling it a 'DCO' ?

I don't know if a name change is strictly necessary or not, but I think it's
worth doing (as my commit message says) just to be nice (if for no other
reason).

Jeremy Allison wrote at 11:36 (PDT):
> Let's discuss on the list if we want to change it, and if so what we'd
> call it. … Bradley, do you have any alternative names you considered ?

The only other name we at Conservancy considered was "Contributor
Attestation" which sounded too legalese, and why we stuck with
"Representation".

I don't have any other specific name ideas, but I have at least one to
suggest that you *don't* use: "Contributor Licensing Agreement". The entire
DCO idea, as discussed in this Conservancy blog post … 
    https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/
… is to point out that a DCO-style structure should be a very lightweight
assurance on top of the "inbound=outbound", and *not* a heavy-weight CLA.
It's good that Samba's document is *not* a heavy-weight CLA and you should
pick a name that communicates it's a lightweight document.

>> On 15/10/2020 19:05, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical wrote further:
>> > Plus I didn't notice the original text was copyrighted and under a
>> > CC-By-SA license, so we should certainly fix that.

Meanwhile, we definitely do need to update the license notice since the
CC-BY-SA has requirements and the copyrighted portions of that text are
licensed that way.  I'll split my pull requests into two as I think it's
important to merge the CC-BY-SA stuff sooner rather than later and the
issues really are separate.  I made a separate merge request for that and
attached the patch as well:
       https://gitlab.com/samba-team/samba/-/merge_requests/1610

I've also updated my original 1609 merge request to *just* execute the name
change, and I'll update it to rebase off of 1610 if 1610 gets merged first,
and/or when a consensus on a different name gets reached on this thread.

Thanks to the Samba Team for working through this issue!

Current state of both patches attached for completeness:

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Update-DCO-for-CC-BY-SA-compliance-1610.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1216 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20201015/e1fc39c1/0001-Update-DCO-for-CC-BY-SA-compliance-1610.diff>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Rename-DCO-1609.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1563 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20201015/e1fc39c1/0001-Rename-DCO-1609.diff>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 

Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him

Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/