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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 ABA8AC433DB for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 18:32:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7317522582 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 18:32:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726282AbgL0Sbc (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Dec 2020 13:31:32 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:50268 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725975AbgL0Sbb (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Dec 2020 13:31:31 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5584A109D0D; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 13:30:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=pmd+xyXdpZ1zsFJDPiVy272qj7U=; b=Nrx39B +Rs09/UXM6bswPQDs1nxSNdydjjLkmU23KusdCj3/SwtDA6wSC4dPsRbMzLPwb4Z Bw/4BGZ8408QEAmQg0JPV1nduDMKHqDIi+dATjvk9+iP9KW60kXwj+BBS63j8oeH 57OFZRRmva0Mnvd555M26Q+tFr9jV09W6rCz0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=qV96TYZNymDtCbNtJ3OR5iF56GjvbLT6 ScX2MgflC7fKGAkWW4Qp/YP2tOSTCvMcKTqsEFNzkbyoCHU3YPx1WGRzGe8o+vnS x8lUdPbE4Kw8PbG+r3bvYT3iZArejuW4x31BbZ5nPXjWN4mXfcmqnQfcsfUyrZNC Fc+ikwTS3cI= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C25A109D0C; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 13:30:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94CC9109D0B; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 13:30:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Felipe Contreras Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Pratyush Yadav , David Aguilar , Seth House , Git Mailing List , Christian Couder , git@sfconservancy.org Subject: Re: Nobody is THE one making contribution References: <5fdc18a91c402_f2faf20837@natae.notmuch> <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> <5fe4b33dbc028_19c920834@natae.notmuch> <5fe8c464bc190_e22d2086a@natae.notmuch> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 10:30:46 -0800 In-Reply-To: <5fe8c464bc190_e22d2086a@natae.notmuch> (Felipe Contreras's message of "Sun, 27 Dec 2020 11:29:08 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A4149F24-4871-11EB-AA66-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Felipe Contreras writes: >> But if you are arguing that when you write "Signed-off-by:" your >> sign-off can mean something other than what DCO says it means, > > The DCO has clause (d), which clearly states the developer must agree > that a record of his/her contribution is maintained indefinitely (and > that includes his/her sign off). Yes. Are you saying that you are OK with (a)-(c) but not (d)? > So there's at least two meanings in the DCO itself. I am not sure what you mean. DCO itself has a to d (four) clauses, so that is not where your two comes from (unless you are hedging by saying "at least two"). What are you counting to reach two? Still puzzled.