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

[Simo Sorce]

On Thu, 2020-10-15 at 12:37 -0700, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical
wrote:
> 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 ?

The old document is not a license, nor would be the new document.
It is a statement about their standing wrt the code they submit.
Their statement does not change just because we reword or rename what
we call it for future submission.

> Keeping the name and modifying the underlying text IMHO
> is the worst of both worlds.

Ok, I do not understand why that would be, but I accept your position.

> Personally I think we should just add the CC-By-SA
> attribution and be done with it.

I'll let you argue with our counsel on that :-)

Simo.