Re: DCO: Was: Re: Contributing to gdb

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025, Luis Machado via Gdb wrote:

> 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.

 It happened with QEMU once, 10+ years ago, and a considerable amount of 
code had to be pulled out just because the original contributors couldn't 
be chased.  I don't have a reference handy, but surely the event can be 
tracked.

> Also, I've seen DCO's being sold partially as a mechanism that doesn't require
> contributors to share personal information, due to privacy concerns. I don't
> think that is true from my reading of it, given we absolutely need to know
> how to reach out to the contributor/employer of the contributor in case the
> need arises. And that is not even considering things like the contributor
> passing away, disappearing etc.

 It did happen with said QEMU relicensing and a former colleague of mine 
who had passed away.  While I was absolutely certain he wouldn't mind he 
wasn't available anymore to speak out.

  Maciej