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

[Rowland penny]

On 15/10/2020 20:30, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Rowland penny via samba-technical wrote:
>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20060524185355/http://www.osdlab.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_05_24_dco.htm
>> I will accept your non working link
> I *think* you have to hit archive.org links for non-HTTPS archives with their
> version of non-HTTPS as well.  This link *does* work but takes a bit to load
> (presumably while archive.org figures out why you're hitting an http://
> link):
>    http://web.archive.org/web/20070306195036/http://osdlab.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_05_24_dco.html
>
> That clearly states the the copyrights in question are all licensed CC-BY-SA.
> As discussed elsewhere in this thread, some changes are needed for proper
> compliance with that copyright license, and why I just separated these
> changes out into a different merge request:
>
> https://gitlab.com/bkuhn/samba/-/commit/8f0c8ee5fd6a91dc113e876dd98e29c1b3549c00
> https://gitlab.com/samba-team/samba/-/merge_requests/1610
>
> That fully fixes the problem of copyright license compliance with regard to
> the text; the name change is a different issue of course that still seems to
> need more discussion.
>
>> and raise you a working one: [OTHER_LINK]
> The other link that you provided really is moot; Samba did *not* base its DCO
> off of the contents of that other link.  Indeed, Samba's DCO was already published
> before that new link even existed.  (i.e., The copyrighted text of the DCO was
> changed from a Free license to a proprietary one after Samba's DCO was published,
> but that wouldn't matter any way, as CC-BY-SA, like all copyleft licenses, is
> irrevocable.  IANAL and TINLA.)
> --
> Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him
> Policy Fellow & Hacker-in-Residence at Software Freedom Conservancy
> ========================================================================
> Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter

I am not saying that we shouldn't fix the compliance problems, of course 
we should, I am just objecting to changing the name for, what I can see, 
no good reason. I do not know who came up with the name in the first 
place, but whether they like it or not, it now appears to be the 
standard name for such things.

I also find it funny that we are arguing about the name for an 
opensource document, I thought the whole idea behind opensource was that 
you could use opensource code in any way you liked, as long as you 
didn't claim ownership and published your code, or did I miss something ?

Rowland