From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F311F4B4 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 12:37:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728355AbgLXMbP (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Dec 2020 07:31:15 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39266 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727184AbgLXMbN (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Dec 2020 07:31:13 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x633.google.com (mail-ej1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::633]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BF57C061794 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 04:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x633.google.com with SMTP id 6so3177385ejz.5 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 04:30:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hBJ1/uJpr5EKW7x/osVtsSYVx4cJedbR2CRh4aCTpcg=; b=RcTnuX2MpvTpuNzLSJIdoU3jcn9ZgJWLLaTcsAVU9TEiljevKUCE82oUNLeldZUJGM BEPtKLbxCSx/5uHBj1fRdZtX0R+5l8Y/PQdJORXEXdhbcKGdX80p/BTfG3GoI7fAt0Rs XvCBwY8x7K9VNM11PaWLiB6blbxhfgLY4e163PVUN9uy1uOQ+TTrKWMvqebOctGC21oC fwOorm25SFr5D8zUkp+g3JPV1o36C9/8PZbkd3CQ5Ql0nG+6Ch+SJhmUR+sntYsNpPlQ H/ssZ7YkD0Be62xOIDt6IDQRMVPyHl+Mnngis5ZOEB1NVt0KI4196pk/gvO1nYpJiJtn nX+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hBJ1/uJpr5EKW7x/osVtsSYVx4cJedbR2CRh4aCTpcg=; b=V++HnMHWP4tpNRUU/5JnKsXsFtJjFRMYdJq1QE+k7FVhQv03CEiGF/2ZFPI29hPOpm iXPRu7X4ZVMYrbqHg9EeT04y9g976tA4RMTZXRu+tCP2DZ7RWmQUXlAxzIlj8hR5lu31 l2EsouSUgbDPzSh5fzNM3j6vKQjKVB4IjuA7Opv6uvam8P5WZucYpRbv/E3EtGe1k3Mn YOtHAfaG3pOvXfZ/A/fhcKT8ikn1jFPZgdeFydgJsvLwKUPnVsii/V4zzOqWh+iq/VTZ XqAJmQLWMpmZVqWe284fa98t1L+vSync15E+G2ogd4M4RsbSMMSlGY+sK1r968JM4/nM NonQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532hZgX+RV2dD5EmTEiOAO+yWLm+AIV15GhW75eD9sR+KclfCyCi e63sXjHu79Tzh84IpwEoSIDPIJJw8zI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBBM8ZeoPheB13Vdzsep/RP2W8hOPKGXfnyYcGMVlEsG6YbyfriiXkNYO0sRU2JSIAzB0zJg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a192:: with SMTP id s18mr26654254ejy.249.1608813031912; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 04:30:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from evledraar (157-157-127-103.dsl.dynamic.simnet.is. [157.157.127.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a23sm5344355ejg.7.2020.12.24.04.30.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 24 Dec 2020 04:30:30 -0800 (PST) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Junio C Hamano , Pratyush Yadav , David Aguilar , Seth House , Git Mailing List , Christian Couder , git@sfconservancy.org Subject: Re: Nobody is THE one making contribution References: <5fdc18a91c402_f2faf20837@natae.notmuch> <20201218054947.GA123376@ellen> <5fdc7a7d3a933_f4673208d0@natae.notmuch> <20201219001358.GA153461@ellen> <20201221042501.GA146725@ellen> <5fe033e0ec278_96932089d@natae.notmuch> <20201221073633.GA157132@ellen> <5fe134eeaec71_11498208f9@natae.notmuch> <20201222150124.mnfcyofm4qyvvj4n@yadavpratyush.com> <5fe2c64bd3790_17f6720897@natae.notmuch> <5fe2d89c212e8_18dc12083e@natae.notmuch> <5fe36790793ae_2354120839@natae.notmuch> <87r1ngufmf.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <5fe424d0528a2_7855a208d3@natae.notmuch> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bullseye/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.4.13 In-reply-to: <5fe424d0528a2_7855a208d3@natae.notmuch> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 13:30:27 +0100 Message-ID: <87o8ijv124.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 24 2020, Felipe Contreras wrote: > =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 23 2020, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>=20 >> > When I express my dissenting opinion I'm not saying nobody should write >> > a patch on top of mine. Of course they can. Anybody can take my code a= nd >> > do whatever they want with it (as long as they don't violate the licen= se >> > of the project). >> > >> > What they cannot do is add my Signed-off-by line to code I don't agree >> > with. >>=20 >> I don't think that's what Signed-off-by means, per SubmittingPatches: >>=20 >> To improve tracking of who did what, we ask you to certify that you >> wrote the patch or have the right to pass it on under the same >> license as ours, by "signing off" your patch[...under the DCO: >> https://developercertificate.org/] > > Yes, but the DCO requires (d): > > 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. > > We can narrow down the part I'm talking about: > > d. I *agree* that a record of the contribution is maintained > indefinitely. > > I don't agree with that. I don't understand you here. You don't agree that we retain Signed-off-by lines indefinitely, or just in the case of amended patches? > Moreover, the relevant definition of "sign off" in English in my opinion > is [1]: > > to approve or acknowledge something by or as if by a signature (sign > off on a memo) > > If I didn't put my "signature" in a commit, then it's not signed off by > me. I think this use of 'signed off" makes perfect sense if you interpret the sign-off to mean "I signed off on the copyright eligibility of this work for inclusion" which is what I think it means. Not "I signed off on my subjective approval of this patch & what it's for etc.", which seems to be closer to your interpretation. >> So I find this rather unlikely, but let's say I author a patch for >> git.git and send it to this ML with a Signed-off-by. >>=20 >> If someone else then takes that patch and changes it in a way that I >> vehemently disagree with and gets Junio to accept it into git.git in its >> altered form, that altered patch should still carry my Signed-off-by, as >> well as that of whoever altered it. > > I don't think so. > > Even if you disregard clause (d) of the DCO, in English you didn't "sign > off" on that particular version of the patch. [...addressed below...] >> "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" is an integral part of >> free software & open source. In our case it means that when you >> contribute code under our COPYING terms someone else might use in a way >> you don't approve of. > > Yes, you just have to make the record straight; do your changes in a > separate commit without my "sign off". We like to maintain "make test" passing for every commit, and sometimes we have patches on the ML with a SOB that don't even compile yet, let alone pass tests, because they were provided by their authors as "maybe try this" or other near-pseudocode. We also like to optimize patch order/size/splits/etc. for the benefit of reviewers. Sometimes someone might send a patch with a SOB that's better squashed into another one, or refactored into N commits spread across a series etc. >> E.g. I'm sure that arms contractors, totalitarian regimes etc. or other >> entities some might disapprove of are using git in some way. > > Yes, and you can modify my patch and keep my s-o-b, I'm not going to sue > you. > > I just don't think that's right. > >> That non-restriction on fields of endeavor also extends to individual >> patches licensed under a free software license & the necessity to >> maintain a paper trail about who their authors are and if they certified >> them under the DCO. > > Sure, so if you need to keep a paper trail about the copyright of the > code, why would you risk that simply because the author didn't agree on > the further changes. > > Just do them on a separate commit. Problem solved. I don't understand how the copyright paper trail is at risk just because we combine N patches into one. The important part is that we have a declaration that the sum of the work (and whatever it's derived from) is properly licensed, that the authors had the right to license it for inclusion etc.