From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: Signed-off-by and aliases Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:44:00 +0200 Message-ID: <55D24790.4010703@dachary.org> References: <55BBD384.7030703@dachary.org> <55BFCAAB.1040707@dachary.org> <55CB4163.9040504@dachary.org> <55CDABB2.4080401@suse.de> <55CDC978.20304@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rgQxGQuHPh6gPQLl6GFacVdfW9EWixD1r" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:39366 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750942AbbHQUoD (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:44:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alex Elsayed , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --rgQxGQuHPh6gPQLl6GFacVdfW9EWixD1r Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alex, On 17/08/2015 22:19, Alex Elsayed wrote: > Loic Dachary wrote: >=20 >> Hi Joao, > >=20 >> It is quite impossible for us (non lawyers) to draw the line that >> separates parano=C3=AFa and common sense. Reason why most discussions = on these >> topics turn short. I cannot dismiss the scenario you describe and I'm >> quite sure asking a lawyer would not clarify anything. Mostly because >> whatever the question, the lawyer answer will always be : "maybe" and >> never "yes" or "no" ;-) That reminds me of an amusing talk in the FOSDEM legal track a few years = back, specifically on that topic :-) -- >> So, how can one make an opinion on a topic (s)he does not fully unders= tand >> ? I chose to decide based on facts I have and favor what give us (the = Ceph >> project community) more flexibility. I don't think anyone has any fact= >> regarding legal troubles related to contributor using aliases. And sin= ce >> we don't verify contributor backgrounds anyway, acknowledging that we >> already accept aliases makes sense to me. >=20 > This is where I see a subtle, but meaningful distinction: Accepting fro= m=20 > aliases *which have submitted a DCO* means that the person behind the a= lias,=20 > even if we don't know their name, has bound themselves to a standard ov= =20 > behavior. >=20 > Accepting from arbitrary aliases does _not_ carry that meaning. Yes. Although we don't do formal background checks, we make sure that eac= h commit is Signed-off-by: the author as required by https://github.com/c= eph/ceph/blob/master/SubmittingPatches#L22 which is linked from the https= ://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.rst document that shows = whenever someone submits a pull request. I also believe this is an important distinction and I would feel uncomfor= table if Ceph accepted contributions (aliases or not) that are not Signed= -off one way or the other. Cheers >=20 >> The value of this thread is more about how we collectively form a >> consensus on a topic that has legal implications than the question of >> accepting aliases or not. As Greg mentioned, all developers/organizati= ons >> holding a significant part of the Ceph copyright know each other. What= ever >> is decided regarding aliases, it is not going to have any actual legal= >> impact. But it would be great if we can somehow come up with a consens= us. >> Ultimately the decision is not for us to make anyway: we're not a >> democracy. But it's not because a community has no power to decide tha= t it >> must not have an opinion ;-) >=20 > Entirely agreed. >=20 > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" i= n > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >=20 --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --rgQxGQuHPh6gPQLl6GFacVdfW9EWixD1r Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlXSR5AACgkQ8dLMyEl6F2005QCfXqEPUGp663xASCF//98e8A2b 6J0An2pWzo0+IRKxvZLquHTb6eRQzL6B =1bpC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rgQxGQuHPh6gPQLl6GFacVdfW9EWixD1r--