[PATCH] Documentation: Rename Samba's DCO to Samba Contributor Representation
jra at samba.org
Thu Oct 15 19:37:51 UTC 2020
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 03:33:22PM -0400, Simo Sorce via samba-technical wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-10-15 at 12:23 -0700, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical
> > Well it's not just Samba that uses DCO. Look here:
> > https://probot.github.io/apps/dco/
> > https://www.dita-ot.org/dco
> > http://www.gearvrf.org/about/certificate/
> > https://www.docker.com/blog/docker-code-contributions-require-developer-certificate-of-origin/
> > 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:
> > https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/a-modest-proposal-on-the-dco/
> > "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.
Changing to a new document is like a license change - what
happens to all the existing signers of the old document ?
Keeping the name and modifying the underlying text IMHO
is the worst of both worlds.
Personally I think we should just add the CC-By-SA
attribution and be done with it.
More information about the samba-technical