Clarification around the DCO
jra at samba.org
Sat Oct 17 00:43:57 UTC 2020
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 04:59:20PM -0700, James Bottomley via samba-technical wrote:
> I noticed the thread you had about Renaming the Samba DCO:
> The kernel developers have spent nearly two decades trying to develop
> and refine the DCO process so that any inbound=outbound project can use
> it in place of a more formal signed contributor agreement. When you
> introduce a novel legal concept like this, the key to getting it to
> work is to have broad unanimity about what you're doing and why ... in
> the case of the DCO this is what the DCO actually says and what Signed-
> off-by: means. To that end we've invested a lot of effort in trying to
> prevent DCO fragmentation, which is why the licence of the current DCO
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> Firstly, in the above thread there was some confusion about who could
> use the name DCO with a lot of other projects being cited. Every other
> project you referred to is an unmodified DCO user and thus is fully
> entitled to use the name DCO as well ... we encourage this unmodified
> reuse to keep a unitary DCO ecosystem and spread its utility to other
> projects. However, since Samba modified the DCO, you don't fall into
> this category.
> Secondly, Bradley dug up an older version of the DCO which had this
Yes, that was the version I originally based ours on.
I thought it was a really good idea :-). I called it
our "DCO" as I just assumed that's what such things
> The Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.0 is licensed under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. If you modify
> you must use a name or title distinguishable from "Developer's
> Certificate of Origin" or "DCO" or any confusingly similar name.
Yeah, I didn't notice that bit :-).
> So if you want to keep your modified version you may, provided you
> endeavor to respect that condition of not having a similar name.
I was a little concerned about the effect that changing
our text might have on people/companies who have already
sent in our text.
I don't want to have to get re-submissions from everyone,
as I hope you can understand.
We provisionally came up with a name of "Samba Developer's Declaration"
which would seem to satify the "different name" criteria.
> We'd also be very interested in bringing Samba back into the
> fold of projects using unmodified DCOs. We now have 17 years of
> operating experience and for every other modification request (and
> there have been many) we've always found a way to add the needed
> clarity to the licence of the file instead of the DCO, so we really
> think we could help you make this work for Samba as well. It would be
> really great if we could work together to do this because Samba is the
> last outlier using a modified DCO and with it brought inside the fold
> we'd have a unified front against the various CA/CLA abuses
> corporations try from time to time.
I'm not averse to moving to your "standard" DCO, so
long as it doesn't mean chasing down everyone to
Otherwise, renaming ours to "Samba Developer's Declaration"
might seem to work also (with proper (C) attribution
added of course).
More information about the samba-technical