* Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag @ 2012-11-20 20:59 Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-11-20 21:16 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-11-20 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel So it turns out everyone and their mother's attorneys love the Signed-off-by tag and its definition as explained on the Linux kernel under the Developer's Certificate of Origin. Its to the extent other projects have picked it up and started documenting their own documentation for submitting patches to embrace the same definition, some without knowing what they were doing, some knowingly and rightfully doing so. I think it'd be good to see more embracement of the tag but to help do this it occurs to me perhaps it'd be good to treat the 'Developer's Certificate of Origin' as a standalone document that we can reference independently, and then have the kernel itself refer to it. That is, provide a unified easy way to refer to the practice for requiring the SOB tag and what it means. Thoughts? Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag 2012-11-20 20:59 Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-11-20 21:16 ` Alan Cox 2012-11-20 22:08 ` Arend van Spriel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2012-11-20 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luis R. Rodriguez; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:59:40 -0800 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote: > So it turns out everyone and their mother's attorneys love the > Signed-off-by tag and its definition as explained on the Linux kernel > under the Developer's Certificate of Origin. Its to the extent other > projects have picked it up and started documenting their own > documentation for submitting patches to embrace the same definition, > some without knowing what they were doing, some knowingly and > rightfully doing so. I think it'd be good to see more embracement of > the tag but to help do this it occurs to me perhaps it'd be good to > treat the 'Developer's Certificate of Origin' as a standalone > document that we can reference independently, and then have the kernel > itself refer to it. That is, provide a unified easy way to refer to > the practice for requiring the SOB tag and what it means. > > Thoughts? Nobody is stopping you putting a copy on a web site. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag 2012-11-20 21:16 ` Alan Cox @ 2012-11-20 22:08 ` Arend van Spriel 2012-11-20 22:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Arend van Spriel @ 2012-11-20 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel On 11/20/2012 10:16 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:59:40 -0800 > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote: >> >> Thoughts? > > Nobody is stopping you putting a copy on a web site. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what Luis is referring to, is the fact that the 'Developer's Certificate of Origin' is currently included in the SubmittingPatches file. Probably the proposal is to take it out and have it in a separate document in the tree. Gr. AvS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag 2012-11-20 22:08 ` Arend van Spriel @ 2012-11-20 22:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-11-21 0:10 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-11-20 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arend van Spriel; +Cc: Alan Cox, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> wrote: > On 11/20/2012 10:16 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:59:40 -0800 >> "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> >> Nobody is stopping you putting a copy on a web site. > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what Luis is referring to, is the fact > that the 'Developer's Certificate of Origin' is currently included in the > SubmittingPatches file. Probably the proposal is to take it out and have it > in a separate document in the tree. Not just a separate document but project / github / whatever given that other projects are referring to it now, and we stand to gain more in the community by streamlining it more and making it ubiquitous. Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag 2012-11-20 22:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-11-21 0:10 ` Alan Cox 2012-11-21 1:13 ` Luis R. Rodriguez ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2012-11-21 0:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luis R. Rodriguez; +Cc: Arend van Spriel, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel > Not just a separate document but project / github / whatever given > that other projects are referring to it now, and we stand to gain more > in the community by streamlining it more and making it ubiquitous. Cutting and pasting it somewhere works (subject to whatever licensing it may have itself), as does having a list and a location for a copy, but you still want it in the tree proper. There's a reason that lawyers copy documents into other documents rather than doing late dynamic binding - you want to be sure that what you reference is the *exact* text that is valid for this case. If you have a single master official copy and a link then you break all that and you'd have to have everyones consensus and planning to change a word of it. Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag 2012-11-21 0:10 ` Alan Cox @ 2012-11-21 1:13 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-11-21 9:40 ` Jiri Slaby 2012-11-21 14:54 ` Alan Cox 2012-11-24 14:25 ` W. Trevor King 2012-12-08 16:22 ` W. Trevor King 2 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-11-21 1:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Arend van Spriel, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: >> Not just a separate document but project / github / whatever given >> that other projects are referring to it now, and we stand to gain more >> in the community by streamlining it more and making it ubiquitous. > > > Cutting and pasting it somewhere works (subject to whatever licensing > it may have itself), as does having a list and a location for a copy, but > you still want it in the tree proper. > > There's a reason that lawyers copy documents into other documents rather > than doing late dynamic binding - you want to be sure that what you > reference is the *exact* text that is valid for this case. > > If you have a single master official copy and a link then you break all > that and you'd have to have everyones consensus and planning to change a > word of it. Ah so keep the original in place to let references to the original in whatever way those may exist to keep pointing but promote new usage to a copy and.. perhaps refer to the new copy in master, or just leave that in place as is? Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag 2012-11-21 1:13 ` Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-11-21 9:40 ` Jiri Slaby 2012-11-21 14:54 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Jiri Slaby @ 2012-11-21 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luis R. Rodriguez Cc: Alan Cox, Arend van Spriel, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel On 11/21/2012 02:13 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Ah so keep the original in place to let references to the original in > whatever way those may exist to keep pointing but promote new usage to > a copy and.. perhaps refer to the new copy in master, or just leave > that in place as is? It depends if they really want to have the same thing we do. I.e. don't they want to rephrase the document a bit? If so, there is no point of linking the document at all. If no, we can create a separate document from that in the kernel so that we allow people to link that at some fixed version using git commit SHA. This can be done easily doing a link to git.kernel.org. The link to git.kernel.org might seem to be long. One can create a dynamic helper on some web like signed-off-by.cgi?id=SHA and it will return that document in that version. (It will redirect basically.) regards, -- js suse labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag 2012-11-21 1:13 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-11-21 9:40 ` Jiri Slaby @ 2012-11-21 14:54 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2012-11-21 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Luis R. Rodriguez; +Cc: Arend van Spriel, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel > > If you have a single master official copy and a link then you break all > > that and you'd have to have everyones consensus and planning to change a > > word of it. > > Ah so keep the original in place to let references to the original in > whatever way those may exist to keep pointing but promote new usage to > a copy and.. perhaps refer to the new copy in master, or just leave > that in place as is? I imagine people would make copies of it for their project and treat it as a reference document to work from. Possibly also a mailing list ? Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag 2012-11-21 0:10 ` Alan Cox 2012-11-21 1:13 ` Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2012-11-24 14:25 ` W. Trevor King 2012-12-08 16:22 ` W. Trevor King 2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: W. Trevor King @ 2012-11-24 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez, Arend van Spriel, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2171 bytes --] On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:10:43AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > Not just a separate document but project / github / whatever given > > that other projects are referring to it now, and we stand to gain more > > in the community by streamlining it more and making it ubiquitous. > > Cutting and pasting it somewhere works (subject to whatever licensing > it may have itself), as does having a list and a location for a copy, but > you still want it in the tree proper. I'm transitioning a project to the DCO-1.1 and trying to get its licensing straightened out. The DCO-1.0 [1] and DCO-1.1 [2] commits were both by Linus, but lacked SOB lines in the commit. The initial proposal was also by Linus [3] (and this initial DCO version is what was committed in [1]). However, the OSDL (where Linus was working at the time) seems to claim copyright for itself and claims CC-BY-SA-2.5-generic [4]. Strangely, the DCO-1.1 text listed on the archived OSDL page does not match the text of the DCO-1.1 text in the kernel tree (the differences look minor to me, but I'm not a laywer). So. What license is the DCO distributed under and who holds copyright? Cheers, Trevor [1]: From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Start documenting the sign-off procedure in SubmittingPatches Date: 2004-06-01 19:13:52 GMT Gmane: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.commits.head/33254 ChangeSet 1.1726.1.148, 2004/06/01 12:13:52-07:00, torvalds… [2]: commit cbd83da82b15292337ff2b71e619c9a3a95f6d80 Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@ppc970.osdl.org> Date: Mon Jun 13 17:51:55 2005 -0700 Update DCO ("signoff") rules to 1.1 [3]: From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> osdl.org> Subject: [RFD] Explicitly documenting patch submission Date: 2004-05-23 06:46:29 GMT Gmane: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/205867 [4]: http://web.archive.org/web/20070306195036/http://osdlab.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_05_24_dco.html -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag 2012-11-21 0:10 ` Alan Cox 2012-11-21 1:13 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-11-24 14:25 ` W. Trevor King @ 2012-12-08 16:22 ` W. Trevor King 2013-02-26 21:37 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: W. Trevor King @ 2012-12-08 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox, Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez, Arend van Spriel, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, Alexey Dobriyan, Jim Meyering, Junio C Hamano, Miklos Vajna, Paolo Ciarrocchi, Ramkumar Ramachandra, Willy Tarreau, Zac Storer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1991 bytes --] On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:10:43AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > Not just a separate document but project / github / whatever given > > that other projects are referring to it now, and we stand to gain more > > in the community by streamlining it more and making it ubiquitous. > > Cutting and pasting it somewhere works (subject to whatever licensing > it may have itself), as does having a list and a location for a copy, but > you still want it in the tree proper. For easy inclusion (preserving history), I've pulled out commits for the DCO and related Signed-off-by documentation from Linux and Git into a new repository [1]. On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 09:25:15AM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote: > So. What license is the DCO distributed under and who holds > copyright? The Git project did some similar copying of the DCO into a new project [2] and is (like the kernel) distributed under the GPLv2 exact. To be consistent with this, I've also released the new signed-off-by repository under the GPLv2 exact. If you're using a GPLv2 exact project, you can merge the `signed-off-by` branch into your project directly. Because many projects that are not GPLv2 may still want to use the DCO/s-o-b approach, I've included an example CONTRIBUTING file (and CONTRIBUTING.md for GitHub) that are licensed under the very permissive Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. Merge the `contributing` or `contributing-github` branch into your project and edit as you see fit. For an example, see the GPLv{2,3} rss2email [3]. Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://github.com/wking/signed-off-by https://github.com/wking/signed-off-by.git git://github.com/wking/signed-off-by.git [2]: https://github.com/gitster/git/commit/314082512403f7f6969cc6d5ded4a48c68a9962e [3]: https://github.com/wking/rss2email/ -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag 2012-12-08 16:22 ` W. Trevor King @ 2013-02-26 21:37 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2013-02-26 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: W. Trevor King Cc: Alan Cox, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Arend van Spriel, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, Alexey Dobriyan, Jim Meyering, Junio C Hamano, Miklos Vajna, Paolo Ciarrocchi, Ramkumar Ramachandra, Willy Tarreau, Zac Storer On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:22 AM, W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:10:43AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: >> > Not just a separate document but project / github / whatever given >> > that other projects are referring to it now, and we stand to gain more >> > in the community by streamlining it more and making it ubiquitous. >> >> Cutting and pasting it somewhere works (subject to whatever licensing >> it may have itself), as does having a list and a location for a copy, but >> you still want it in the tree proper. > > For easy inclusion (preserving history), I've pulled out commits for > the DCO and related Signed-off-by documentation from Linux and Git > into a new repository [1]. > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 09:25:15AM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote: >> So. What license is the DCO distributed under and who holds >> copyright? > > The Git project did some similar copying of the DCO into a new project > [2] and is (like the kernel) distributed under the GPLv2 exact. To be > consistent with this, I've also released the new signed-off-by > repository under the GPLv2 exact. If you're using a GPLv2 exact > project, you can merge the `signed-off-by` branch into your project > directly. > > Because many projects that are not GPLv2 may still want to use the > DCO/s-o-b approach, I've included an example CONTRIBUTING file (and > CONTRIBUTING.md for GitHub) that are licensed under the very > permissive Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. Merge the > `contributing` or `contributing-github` branch into your project and > edit as you see fit. For an example, see the GPLv{2,3} rss2email [3]. This is awesome, thanks! I've started to use your work in my projects. I'll Cc you on an e-mail post about this and copyleft-next section 7. Luis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-26 21:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-11-20 20:59 Streamlining Developer's Certificate of Origin, Signed-off-by tag Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-11-20 21:16 ` Alan Cox 2012-11-20 22:08 ` Arend van Spriel 2012-11-20 22:21 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-11-21 0:10 ` Alan Cox 2012-11-21 1:13 ` Luis R. Rodriguez 2012-11-21 9:40 ` Jiri Slaby 2012-11-21 14:54 ` Alan Cox 2012-11-24 14:25 ` W. Trevor King 2012-12-08 16:22 ` W. Trevor King 2013-02-26 21:37 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).