On 11/22/24 6:03 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
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."
Sure, but it is a material change in our processes. How do you propose
that reviewers judge what constitutes a "known" identity?
Jason
