Re: Nobody is THE one making contribution

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2020, 14:27 UTC
Message-ID: <5fe9eb45aa314_209d2088e@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqmtxyjjt2.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> >> But if you are arguing that when you write "Signed-off-by:" your
> >> >> sign-off can mean something other than what DCO says it means,
> >> >
> >> > The DCO has clause (d), which clearly states the developer must agree
> >> > that a record of his/her contribution is maintained indefinitely (and
> >> > that includes his/her sign off).
> >> 
> >> Yes.  Are you saying that you are OK with (a)-(c) but not (d)?
> >
> > I'm saying if the author of the patch states "I don't agree with a
> > record of my contribution being maintained indefinitely with my sign
> > off", then clause (d) isn't met.
> 
> Yeah, but then why does such an author add Signed-off-by: trailer to
> begin with?

Why an author does anything is not something even the greatest psychologist of all time would know with 100% certainty, unless he/she reads minds, which nobody can do.

All we know is what the author does.

> So, "by making a contribution", the author who added a Signed-off-by
> trailer is certifying that (a|b|c)&d is true.

Yes, (d) is a requirement.

But agreeing (d) applies for patch A is not agreeing that it applies for patch B.

Apples are not oranges.

> Perhaps we can tighten the language to say "If (and only if) you can
> certify" and that may reduce confusion?

Clause (d) still must apply.

-- 
Felipe Contreras