Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb

Luis Machado <[email protected]> writes:

> On 1/13/25 17:14, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> Luis Machado via Gdb <[email protected]> writes:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 6/23/24 23:06, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> I just noticed that GDB (and binutils) are currently not accepting
>>>>>> DCO's like both glibc
>>>>>> (https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#Copyright_and_license)
>>>>>> and GCC (https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal) are now accepting.
>>>>>> Has there been any talk about accepting DCOs for gdb and binutils? Or
>>>>>> has this not been brought up yet?
>>>>
>>>> If gcc, glibc, and binutils accept it, then IMO gdb should as well.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Bumping this thread. I noticed there was a mention of aligning gcc/glibc/binutils in terms
>>> of DCO text. That made me wonder where we stand regarding DCO for gdb [1], and if we really
>>> want to stray from the other toolchain projects by not making a decision on whether we accept
>>> it or not.
>>>
>>> [1] https://inbox.sourceware.org/binutils/[email protected]/
>> 
>> Based on nothing more than remaining consistent with gcc, binutils, and
>> glibc, I think we should make the switch to accepting DCO contributions
>> under the same terms that binutils uses[2] (as well as accepting FSF
>> assigned contributions).
>> 
>> I'm volunteering myself to add suitable words to the GDB wiki (based off
>> the binutils wording), unless anyone objects.  Ideally I'd like a +1
>> from a couple of other global maintainers with no serious objections,
>> and I'll go ahead and make the change.
>> 
>> I think that Eli believes the concerns with FSF assignment are
>> overblown, and given the information provided, I'm inclined to agree.
>> But at this point, with other components accepting DCO, I'm not sure
>> that's really relevant.  Unless there's a super compelling reason why
>> GDB should diverge ... I think we should fall into line with the other
>> components.
>> 
>> [2] https://sourceware.org/binutils/wiki/HowToContribute
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>> 
>
> I did some reading on DCO's and I have mixed feelings. I haven't followed
> discussions about DCO's on the other GNU tools projects, so it is not clear
> to me yet how/if they addressed the shortcomings of DCO's.
>
> While I agree having gdb be the sole bureaucratic entity not accepting DCO
> with the other GNU tools projects accepting it (in particular because we
> share code with binutils, so technically we'd have to make a joint decision),
> DCO's don't seem to come for free, as we need to track each and every one of
> those contributions so we can refer back to them when/if we ever decide to
> update/switch licenses or if a legal problem arises.

I wonder how an attempt to switch licence for GDB would work given we
statically link against libbfd, which can already include DCO code?

Thanks,
Andrew