On 11/22/24 11:13 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 11/21/24 6:04 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> Adjust the DCO text to match the broader community usage including >> the Linux kernel use around "real names." >> >> These changes clarify what was meant by "real name" and that it is >> not required to be a "legal name" or any other stronger >> requirement than a known identity that could be contacted to >> discuss the contribution. > > My take has been that this change is not necessary for us because the > FSF can accept copyright assignment for pseudonymous contributions, > so individual reviewers don't need to adjudicate whether a particular > pseudonym is sufficiently "known".
This is not the case, which is why I'm suggesting we align the wording of the DCO usage to match the general community accepted meaning. The FSF copyright assignment process allows you to *post* your work publicly from a pseudonym and allows you to use your pseudonym in the "sources" file that GNU Maintainers use to check assignment and marks it like this: "Note: this is a pseudonym; legal name on assignment." The process does not allow you to remain pseudonymous to the FSF, and that information may eventually leak out of the FSF. Again, I'm suggesting we align the text of the DCO we use with the rest of the communities that use it. This is not a material change in the use of the DCO, just a clarification of the wording around "real name." -- Cheers, Carlos.
