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

Ulrich Müller <[email protected]> Sat, 27 Jun 2026 17:59:53 +0200

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

>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2026, Michał Górny wrote:

> Okay.  All things considered, how about we consider the opposite.  Given
> that:

> 1. GCO is more lax than DCO, and therefore anything committed under the
> DCO is also valid under the GCO, and

> 2. We have overloaded the meaning of Signed-off-by, so you can't really
> tell if someone actually agreed to GCO or made a signoff assuming DCO,

> how about we drop the "(DCO-1.1)" tag, and just have Signed-off-by mean
> *either* GCO or DCO?

Why are you so eager to change something that hasn't caused any
problems?

IMHO it would again weaken our position. It is better if we have the
additional GCO vs DCO information, i.e. if we know what the contributor
has actually certified.

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 544 B)