Re: [PATCH glep] glep-0076: Remove kernel DCO use provision

Michał Górny <[email protected]> Mon, 22 Jun 2026 20:46:59 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.gentoo.devel
Organization	Gentoo
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Mon, 2026-06-22 at 18:39 +0100, Sam James wrote:
> Michał Górny <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 2026-06-22 at 17:22 +0100, Sam James wrote:
> > > Michał Górny <[email protected]> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Remove the provision that the kernel DCO can be used instead of the GCO.
> > > > This provision has been never used.
> > > 
> > > The point of it was that having a bespoke GCO can be problematic for
> > > contributors. That nobody has used it yet doesn't mean it won't help a
> > > (likely corporate) contributor in future.
> > > 
> > 
> > I should probably have pointed out that as a followup I'd like to
> > integrate at least some of our AI policy into GCO, so that a contributor
> > signing off would also clarify that the contribution was made with "no
> > assistance of ..."  Having a DCO fallback would then be a significant
> > loophole.
> 
> Ah, that's useful background. I'm not sure still though: our AI policy
> isn't only concerned with copyright (we care about quality and ethics too) and
> having it spread in different places may not be a good thing. Do we need
> to update the social contract too? ;)
> 

To be honest, I was thinking how to fit SC into all of this.  In the
end, what we want people to do is to follow the SC.  What I really
dislike about the current system is that we're doing one sign-off for
one policy, and then adding GitHub pull request templates to have them
sign off on another policy.

Admittedly, this changes very little, so perhaps it makes no sense.  I
honestly doubt most of the contributors even realize what they're
signing off on -- given that --signoff is pretty much a standard for
contributing to many projects these days.

I'll withdraw the patch.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 293 B)