On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 03:13:35PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 02:13:53PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Perhaps the c clause should be clarified that the source files > >> themselves were not modified - not the commit message. > > > > The DCO text is verbatim copies only [1], so I don't think > > adjusting clauses is legal. > > I copied it from /usr/src/linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > which is GPLv2, as far as I can tell.
Luis R. Rodriguez and I spent some time trying to track this down with the authors while I was factoring the signed-off-by documentation out into a stand-alone repository [1,2]. There was some debate about whether the text was copyrightable, but the explicit copyright claim and license on the Linux Foundation's DCO page [3] settles it for me. > > Personally, I don't think the maintainer appending their s-o-b to > > the user's commit is all that important (certainly not worth > > blowing away the user's signature) when they can just sign and > > s-o-b an explicit merge commit. > > Agree. No need to modify the original commit. So the policy in the wiki should be: “Don't clobber the user's signature on a commit, even to add your Signed-off-by. Instead, explicitly merge signed user commits, or have the user reroll the commit with your tweaks and re-sign it.” Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://github.com/wking/signed-off-by [2]: http://www.do-not-panic.com/2014/02/developer-certificate-of-origin.html [3]: http://developercertificate.org/ -- 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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
