From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Elsayed Subject: Re: Signed-off-by and aliases Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:19:21 -0700 Message-ID: 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:59920 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750902AbbHQUTb (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:19:31 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRQsT-0003Ek-A5 for ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:19:29 +0200 Received: from 66.87.139.27 ([66.87.139.27]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:19:29 +0200 Received: from eternaleye by 66.87.139.27 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:19:29 +0200 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Joao, > 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" ;-) There are cases where lawyer's will say "yes" or "no" - it's just that = those=20 tend to be "Yes, this will cost a lot of effort to succeed against" and= "No,=20 I don't think we can successfully argue that" :P > Yet, we are to decide what makes sense and what does not. If you ask = the > OpenStack community, the majority agree that it is necessary to have = a > CLA. If you ask the Linux kernel community, the consensus seems to be= that > there is no need for a CLA. etc. I think part of the issue here is that "CLA" is a very overloaded term = (in=20 the C++ sense). Some use it to refer to copyright assignment, which is a portion of som= e=20 CLAs. Some use it to refer to "thick" CLAs, like the Project Harmony ones, wh= ich=20 may or may not have copyright assignment depending on the individual CL= A. Others use it to refer to _any_ formal agreement regarding licensing be= tween=20 the code author and some entity responsible for the overall body of cod= e -=20 under which definition the kernel DCO qualifies. Personally, I fall into the camp that says that a DCO-like system, whic= h=20 ensures that input =3D output and attests to the right to submit, is=20 sufficient: Whethern the person submits the DCO under an alias or not, = they=20 have asserted that *submissions under this name (even if it's an alias)= will=20 abide by the DCO* - and thus people accepting those patches have a reas= on to=20 believe that the submissions are "clean" and in good faith. Also, if that model came under fire, various groups involved in the ker= nel=20 would have a vested interest in helping defend it. That's not a small t= hing=20 to backstop on. > So, how can one make an opinion on a topic (s)he does not fully under= stand > ? 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 fac= t > regarding legal troubles related to contributor using aliases. And si= nce > we don't verify contributor backgrounds anyway, acknowledging that we > already accept aliases makes sense to me. 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. Accepting from arbitrary aliases does _not_ carry that meaning. > 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/organizat= ions > holding a significant part of the Ceph copyright know each other. Wha= tever > is decided regarding aliases, it is not going to have any actual lega= l > impact. But it would be great if we can somehow come up with a consen= sus. > 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 th= at it > must not have an opinion ;-) Entirely agreed. -- 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