>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, Robin H Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 02:26:43AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> The "natural person" part was lost in this change. It also doesn't >> reappear in the added section below. I think we don't want any corporate >> entities there (or at least that's what I had taken from the previous >> "Sony" discussion). > Will re-add to the name section.
> For this section, I had a further thought and feel this is cleaner: > to the commit message as a separate line. The sign-off must contain > -the committer's legal name as a natural person, i.e., the name that > -would appear in a government issued document. > +the contributor's name as discussed in the next section. Good point, and much better. (In fact, in the previous version I wondered why "Name" would have a capital letter, until I realized that it referred to the example above.) Also, with the new wording, you could say "contributor's name as a natural person" here, and leave the next section alone. Just as a suggestion, with no strong preference on my side. >> > +Contributor Name >> > +---------------- >> I just notice that it says "contributor" here while it is "committer" >> above. Not sure which is better, but maybe we should use the same word >> everywhere? > I think this might warrant a larger discussion. > The Kernel DCO is required for all patches, not just commits. > The GCO rev 1 text borrowed the same word: contribution. > Specifically the author of the contribution can easily be different from the > person committing it into a VCS. Contributors are a superset of committers. > At the same time, I've already seen developers ask contributors for a > sign-off, even when it's only the developer doing the commit; which isn't > required by the Gentoo policy as it's written today. Right, we require a signoff by the author for patches sent by e-mail, so presumably contributor is better. > Maybe this specific commit that changes "legal name" should stick to > "committer", which the explicit plan to make the text [Something seems to be missing from that sentence, but I believe I got the meaning.] Let's keep everything in one commit, because these changes are in the same section and are closely related. >> > +Contributors must sign off on contributions with a name that can be made >> > +public and would pass copyright due diligence. >> Suggestion: "with their name as a natural person" > Agreed & queued. Will incorporate after other discussion above is concluded. >> > +For revision 1.2, further thanks are extended to kuzetsa CatSwarm, >> > +Richard Freeman, John Helmert III, Ulrich Müller and Alec Warner. >> The authors thanking themselves would be very unusual in an >> acknowledgement. :) I suggest to just add John Helmert III to the >> existing list (keeping alphabetical order). All others are either >> authors or are already mentioned. > If I do that, the specific contributions of multiple parties already in the > author list are not acknowledged for this revision: rich0, antarus, ulm. > The new text was substantially written by myself, with the great suggestion > from kuzetsa, and then everybody else contributed good edits to it. So far we had followed the principle not to list authors in the acknowledgements (which is worded "the authors would like to thank"). If we start adding them for revision 1.2, then we'd have to add more names to the existing list. > If you're happy to not take extra acknowledgement that this was for Rev 1.2, > I'll just tweak it to add kuzetsa to authors and ajak to thanks list. Please do. CCing rich0 and antarus, are you happy with this? Another small point: Whitespace in the new section doesn't follow the style in the rest of the GLEP, which uses two blank lines before and one blank line after section headings, as well as two spaces at the end of every sentence. (This is also what GLEP 2 says.) Ulrich
Description: PGP signature