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

On Sat, 2026-06-27 at 20:45 +0200, Ulrich Müller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 27 Jun 2026, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Sorry, but what exactly is dishonest, and how are we "hijacking a
> well-known tag"? Linux (the kernel) doesn't have a monopoly on the
> Signed-off-by line.
> 
> git-commit(1) makes it very clear that the meaning of --signoff can
> vary, depending on the project:
> 
> > The meaning of a signoff depends on the project to which you’re
> > committing. For example, it may certify that the committer has the
> > rights to submit the work under the project’s license or agrees to
> > some contributor representation, such as a Developer Certificate of
> > Origin. [...] Consult the documentation or leadership of the project
> > to which you’re contributing to understand how the signoffs are used
> > in that project.

Great.  So you can tell people they should have RTFM.  Very nice.

> 
> As long as our signoff is close to what a contributor can reasonably
> expect (i.e. doesn't contain any surprising and unusual clauses),
> I don't see any problem with our policy.

And you're being contradictory again.  Either it is "close enough" not
to warrant special treatment, or it is not and we need users to
explicitly state what they're agreeing to.  Make up your mind.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iKQEABYKAEwWIQQcFD0bEK7NPNmWHtiOMjR69AVa6AUCakCFlhsUgAAAAAAEAA5t
YW51MiwyLjUrMS4xMiwyLDISHG1nb3JueUBnZW50b28ub3JnAAoJEI4yNHr0BVro
9RgBALUy2sF7LJarVgVGdgijHg9DnhM2t0ztyf6omUybVGudAP4ryYu2g/AbfyHU
RJfDt4/OhZObJkWiZYzt1G5HeFsoAg==
=mkpT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----