[PATCH] Documentation: Rename Samba's DCO to Samba Contributor Representation
idra at samba.org
Thu Oct 15 19:33:22 UTC 2020
On Thu, 2020-10-15 at 12:23 -0700, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 03:14:13PM -0400, Simo Sorce via samba-
> technical wrote:
> > [Resending as originally sent from wrong address and bounced]
> > On Thu, 2020-10-15 at 19:14 +0100, Rowland penny via samba-
> > technical
> > wrote:
> > > Hang on, what is wrong with calling it a 'DCO' ?
> > The original license for DCO 1.0 did not permit it, this is the
> > only
> > reference I can still find.
> > If you modify you must use a name or title distinguishable
> > from
> > "Developer's Certificate of Origin" or "DCO" or any
> > confusingly
> > similar name.
> > The current DCO (1.1), in contrast, does not permit modifications
> > at
> > all.
> > > With 'DCO' (Developer's Certificate of Origin), even I (a total
> > > thicko) can understand what it means,
> > Maybe you really do, but to me it never meant anything until
> > explained
> > anyway. The first time I saw the name I wondered why they want to
> > know
> > where *I* am from.
> > > I have no idea what 'Contributor Representation' means.
> > That's why you read the text and figure it out, it is just a name
> > and
> > is as good as the original in terms of clarity IMO.
> Well it's not just Samba that uses DCO. Look here:
> for just a few of the other projects that use "DCO"
> to do exactly what we do.
> Right now it looks like the term "DCO" has become
> synonymous with what we're doing here.
> Even Linux kernel developers use it in this way:
> "When one of our developers posts a patch to a project under
> an OSI approved licence with a DCO Signed-off-by: from our
> corporate email domain, we authorise that developer to be our
> agent in the minimum set of patent and copyright grants that
> are required to satisfy the terms of the OSI approved licence
> for the contribution."
> Note that the above text doesn't say "to the Linux kernel
> project" here - only "to a project".
Yes I am aware, and I do not think we have any strong obligation to
change the Samba DCO name, but if we do not want to change the name I
think we should have a new document drafted from scratch so that we do
not violate the license of the original DCO text, unless you argue that
"Samba DCO" is not a "similar name" enough.
More information about the samba-technical