Hi Michael, On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 22:48:57 +1100 Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > > But do they need SOBs?
I think so, since they modify the code .. > The DCO says: > > By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: > > (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I > have the right to submit it under the open source license > indicated in the file; or > > (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best > of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source > license and I have the right under that license to submit that > work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part > by me, under the same open source license (unless I am > permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated > in the file; or > > (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other > person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified > it. > > (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution > are public and that a record of the contribution (including all > personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is > maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with > this project or the open source license(s) involved. > > > Only d) really applies to a revert, and as the maintainer I feel like d) > is kind of implied. I read this as (a || b || c) && d. And if there is no SOB, then none of the above is certified. > Anyway I'll try and remember to do it in future if that's The Rule ;) Its just as effective as the rest of our rules ... i.e. a strong suggestion :-) Thanks -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
pgpkuQW6MX5Fw.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
