> On 11/24/24 11:49 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > One size doesn't necessarily fit all. Perhaps if you're changing the DCO > > text for the toolchain projects at this moment, it might be a good time to > > consider if the Linux DCO text suits your project perfectly.
Carlos O'Donell wrote: > This is not a change of the DCO text. > Nor am I suggesting a change in the DCO text. But of course you are. Specifically, you're tracking and implementing any changes to Linux's DCO done by the Linux project. That could be a good thing, but I'm just not sure. If everyone in all the toolchain projects are indeed sure they want the exact same DCO text as used by Linux, then of course you should track every change they make and mirror their text exactly. I'm just proposing that the toolchain projects take time to think for themselves on these matters, for reasons outlined in my earlier email (see below). There is no mandate by anyone, including Linux Foundation itself, that every implementation of a DCO be the same. In fact, LF has since the advent of the DCO encouraged folks to adapt the language for differing needs. I suggest that the toolchain projects may well have differing needs. >> While the DCO text used by the kernel named Linux is a fine text and >> serves many purposes, it is particularly aligned with the sub-maintainer >> model of Linux development — whereby submaintainers take cascading >> responsibility as patches work their way upstream, and are thus adding >> Signed-Off-By tags upon existing Signed-Off-By tags, and thus >> strengthening the DCO attestation with addition of more parties for the >> same patch. >> I am not aware that all of the toolchain projects have a similar model of >> development and thus the DCO text that Linux uses may not be ideal. >> Despite what the current marketing departments might tell you, the DCO is >> not a single document nor was it designed to be. There are many variants >> throughout the Free Software community to meet the needs of specific >> projects. (Indeed, the original DCO text was specifically released under >> CC-By-SA to encourage projects to adapt it to their needs [0].) >> One size doesn't necessarily fit all. Perhaps if you're changing the DCO >> text for the toolchain projects at this moment, it might be a good time to >> consider if the Linux DCO text suits your project perfectly. >> FWIW, my specific concern with the Linux DCO is, as Denver and I discussed >> in licensing BoF at Cauldron, the Linux DCO text is specifically designed >> to shift licensing liability from any *entity* who might be contributing >> or who might hold copyright (such as a company or a non-profit) *onto* the >> individual developer who submitted the patch. I suppose this structure >> works well for Linux, but, especially given that contributors to the >> toolchain projects have been used to all the liability shifting to the FSF >> through its historical copyright assignment system, developers might be >> surprised to learn that a DCO-based patch (as opposed to a copyright >> assigned one) puts additional liability onto the contributor. -- Bradley M. Kuhn - he/them Policy Fellow & Hacker-in-Residence at Software Freedom Conservancy ======================================================================== Become a Conservancy Sustainer today: https://sfconservancy.org/sustainer
