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

Michał Górny <[email protected]> Sat, 27 Jun 2026 18:48:49 +0200

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

On Sat, 2026-06-27 at 17:59 +0200, Ulrich Müller wrote:
> > > > > > 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?

I'm eager to change stuff that's bullshit and dishonest.  If you hijack
a well-known tag to mean something different, that's dishonest to our
users.

> 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.

How does that information "strengthen" "our position" exactly?  What
purpose is the data collected for?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

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