From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073E0C433E0 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 15:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D682F224B0 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 15:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728620AbgLXP1h (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Dec 2020 10:27:37 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38304 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727039AbgLXP1g (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Dec 2020 10:27:36 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48CA9C061574 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 07:26:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id j20so2059014otq.5 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 07:26:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wlcrb5FYH2mMlyzF6oLmmPmdEjClDzSbMhMfYAzOiXE=; b=L0ZEC/m2RHOR5l57kH7LeG+nwuVCLdrULdU7LmUbclRTZE4OA97nzLeg+tLGpqHvc4 baskLjctfhNhVqDr+btt7GY/EWMwq4MukBjMTg++PZsh4NDYZHMM/viJ9Ju9T/FIbRqG T4bOeAp0lfl1SUwssQ0MlAhAf5owEC2AWhsupxlLI9aeA6J5d2nOVE2wmcZtGsfnc3WE 6FrIlAlw+lDCmYVuzza26aHavGOJ+EcnTxuFKfs6hbxNBWkwwogcg7h/LaoAIexb5l6S XbpgyVqsl40p9ndqUSewwnMvZLTxReB/fLwWgtBDi27HVpX/26WrfATdnWFz83B8TkZD aSWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wlcrb5FYH2mMlyzF6oLmmPmdEjClDzSbMhMfYAzOiXE=; b=P0XS1Hz+JgXnlJ1qvLfaoggfiDRQ6Umt6r+k7WlenHykSCTBCYzqRF53/217D+rrDs 7ESVPDiP6X7QArcr7n1Mvriq5qD9ar4DaisTN4m3UT6yjFSlvAl50XFS3B0SsTtb1ZdT qY/abVS7uQdXFSyjvd57bfqa+Ar9pbeknHpyiKUeXX+YMry3g4Mdahl0Wzi4zTGIVVqe ATNpYpY3gHQMePBhcUGP8Wiso01T+vb2Ft9rb1i7EuIHFqskw6S0kQVJ9yx9x8+3uFAs BcznirVx6EGnKKMCCCee/1ae95Vq06YjnG2EclUstvPbiWoMM2zpTKytseH3LGQV7bqq aADA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533usSmRziG3q490XZ4yAiLr+/XJI9urNKI/SffLnMh0VFDn3J5z JQC1PIeVUb7Ei7OlP8eB02A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzDhknBfafi2WAez38AQPf8AUngu0w5OdO2dJHHygVlcYKSbC22vxDngLQgoT9tzxx1ZSHJ5A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:2413:: with SMTP id j19mr23940651ots.251.1608823615707; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 07:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (189-209-26-110.static.axtel.net. [189.209.26.110]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v3sm3385531ool.16.2020.12.24.07.26.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 24 Dec 2020 07:26:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 09:26:53 -0600 From: Felipe Contreras To: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Felipe Contreras Cc: Junio C Hamano , Pratyush Yadav , David Aguilar , Seth House , Git Mailing List , Christian Couder , git@sfconservancy.org Message-ID: <5fe4b33dbc028_19c920834@natae.notmuch> In-Reply-To: <87o8ijv124.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> References: <5fdc18a91c402_f2faf20837@natae.notmuch> <20201218054947.GA123376@ellen> <5fdc7a7d3a933_f4673208d0@natae.notmuch> <20201219001358.GA153461@ellen> <20201221042501.GA146725@ellen> <5fe033e0ec278_96932089d@natae.notmuch> <20201221073633.GA157132@ellen> <5fe134eeaec71_11498208f9@natae.notmuch> <20201222150124.mnfcyofm4qyvvj4n@yadavpratyush.com> <5fe2c64bd3790_17f6720897@natae.notmuch> <5fe2d89c212e8_18dc12083e@natae.notmuch> <5fe36790793ae_2354120839@natae.notmuch> <87r1ngufmf.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <5fe424d0528a2_7855a208d3@natae.notmuch> <87o8ijv124.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Nobody is THE one making contribution Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason wrote: > On Thu, Dec 24 2020, Felipe Contreras wrote: > = > > =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 23 2020, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> = > >> > When I express my dissenting opinion I'm not saying nobody should = write > >> > a patch on top of mine. Of course they can. Anybody can take my co= de and > >> > do whatever they want with it (as long as they don't violate the l= icense > >> > of the project). > >> > > >> > What they cannot do is add my Signed-off-by line to code I don't a= gree > >> > with. > >> = > >> I don't think that's what Signed-off-by means, per SubmittingPatches= : > >> = > >> To improve tracking of who did what, we ask you to certify that = you > >> wrote the patch or have the right to pass it on under the same > >> license as ours, by "signing off" your patch[...under the DCO: > >> https://developercertificate.org/] > > > > Yes, but the DCO requires (d): > > > > d. I understand and agree that this project and the contribution ar= e > > public and that a record of the contribution (including all pers= onal > > information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is maintain= ed > > indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this proje= ct or > > the open source license(s) involved. > > > > We can narrow down the part I'm talking about: > > > > d. I *agree* that a record of the contribution is maintained > > indefinitely. > > > > I don't agree with that. > = > I don't understand you here. You don't agree that we retain > Signed-off-by lines indefinitely, or just in the case of amended > patches? The DCO requires that I agree that a record of my contribution is maintained indefinitely. If I don't agree that a record of a particular contribution is maintained indefinitely, the DCO says you shouldn't use it. > > Moreover, the relevant definition of "sign off" in English in my opin= ion > > is [1]: > > > > to approve or acknowledge something by or as if by a signature (sig= n > > off on a memo) > > > > If I didn't put my "signature" in a commit, then it's not signed off = by > > me. > = > I think this use of 'signed off" makes perfect sense if you interpret > the sign-off to mean "I signed off on the copyright eligibility of this= > work for inclusion" which is what I think it means. > = > Not "I signed off on my subjective approval of this patch & what it's > for etc.", which seems to be closer to your interpretation. Why does it have to be only one meaning? Junio doesn't sign off on a patch that he doesn't think is good. Same happens with all the lieutenants of Linux. > >> "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" is an integral part o= f > >> free software & open source. In our case it means that when you > >> contribute code under our COPYING terms someone else might use in a = way > >> you don't approve of. > > > > Yes, you just have to make the record straight; do your changes in a > > separate commit without my "sign off". > = > We like to maintain "make test" passing for every commit, and sometimes= > we have patches on the ML with a SOB that don't even compile yet, let > alone pass tests, because they were provided by their authors as "maybe= > try this" or other near-pseudocode. > = > We also like to optimize patch order/size/splits/etc. for the benefit o= f > reviewers. Sometimes someone might send a patch with a SOB that's bette= r > squashed into another one, or refactored into N commits spread across a= > series etc. Yes. And most of the time that's fine, because the original author is not objecting to the clause (d). > >> E.g. I'm sure that arms contractors, totalitarian regimes etc. or ot= her > >> entities some might disapprove of are using git in some way. > > > > Yes, and you can modify my patch and keep my s-o-b, I'm not going to = sue > > you. > > > > I just don't think that's right. > > > >> That non-restriction on fields of endeavor also extends to individua= l > >> patches licensed under a free software license & the necessity to > >> maintain a paper trail about who their authors are and if they certi= fied > >> them under the DCO. > > > > Sure, so if you need to keep a paper trail about the copyright of the= > > code, why would you risk that simply because the author didn't agree = on > > the further changes. > > > > Just do them on a separate commit. Problem solved. > = > I don't understand how the copyright paper trail is at risk just becaus= e > we combine N patches into one. It's not just a copyright paper trail, the DCO clearly states that the author should: d. I *agree* that a record of the contribution is maintained indefinitely. > The important part is that we have a declaration that the sum of the > work (and whatever it's derived from) is properly licensed, that the > authors had the right to license it for inclusion etc. That's the important part, yes. It's not the only part. Cheers. -- = Felipe Contreras=