Clarification around the DCO
James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership.com
Sat Oct 17 03:40:57 UTC 2020
On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 20:21 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 06:20:02PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-10-16 at 17:56 -0700, Jeremy Allison via samba-
> > technical
> > > Ah, I've just remembered *why* we have a difference from
> > > your "standard" DCO text.
> > >
> > > In our text we have the clause:
> > >
> > > "(e) I am granting this work to this project under the terms of
> > > both the
> > > GNU General Public License and the GNU Lesser General Public
> > > License
> > > as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version
> > > 3 of
> > > these Licenses, or (at the option of the project) any later
> > > version."
> > OK, so legally LGPLv3 and GPLv3 are the same licence: LGPLv3 is
> > GPLv3 with an additional permission. Your clause (e) effectively
> > requires GPLv3 with the additional permission on every
> > contribution.
> > > The reason for this is that Samba as a whole is under
> > > GPLv3, but there are many useful libraries within Samba
> > > (talloc, tevent, tdb etc.) that started life as an integral
> > > part of Samba - so GPLv3, but then external projects wanted
> > > to use them without being bound by GPLv3 terms, so asked
> > > us to re-license under LGPLv3.
> > Right so what you really want is some event to trigger the addition
> > of the permission that changes the licence from GPL to LGPL. This
> > more or less is why the apache model is broad inbound grant coupled
> > with licensing by the project board to the contributor, so the
> > board decides. Without this governance trigger effectively the
> > whole of Samba is LGPL because every contribution was required to
> > have the additional permission.
> > Obviously, a lot of open source projects don't like the apache
> > inbound != outbound model (and don't have a real governing board),
> > so something else has to be the trigger. The model I've always
> > liked is all code in X (usually lib/) is under the LGPL, so the
> > trigger is accepting a patch moving the code under X. You can see
> > this with the efitools project, which is under GPLv2 but shares its
> > lib/ code with shim, which is under BSD-2-Clause. This is how the
> > licence of efitools copes:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/efitools.git/tree/COPYING
> > The trigger is very rudimentary and hasn't really been changed for
> > 8 years, so perhaps we could craft something better for Samba.
> > Well, I think the efitools model above shows it can be done within
> > the DCO framework so I think we have a basis for exploration of
> > whether this can work for Samba as well.
> OK, at this point I error out with IANAL, sorry :-).
Heh, that's OK, I've been talking DCO processes with Lawyers for an
incredibly long time ... something rubbed off.
> I think this would be better done via discussions
> between lawyers. In the meantime the quickest
> way to get to a non-conflicting situation is
> to change our name to "Samba Developer's Declaration"
> (if everyone on the Team agrees) and add the CC-By-SA
> (C) notice so we're fully in compliance.
> Better minds than I can then work in the background
> to try and unify what we need with the existing DCO.
> Sounds like a plan ?
Certainly. I was just exploring willingness to seek a unification with
the current DCO process ... I fully accept that it requires mature
consideration on all sides to ensure it goes smoothly and nothing is
forgotten, so there's absolutely no need to rush it.
More information about the samba-technical