Use of DCO

[Richard Fontana]

On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 04:13:32PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> writes:

> > You seem to want
> > *non-copyright-holders* to assert something they are not asserting
> > today, right? No CLA does that.
> 
> I'm trying to answer the question of: "does oVirt have a CLA" where DCO
> is generally accepted as a form of CLA.
> 
> But oVirt isn't following what is commonly accepted as the DCO process
> because maintainers aren't signing off on patches.

I don't think there is any standard DCO practice, except in the sense
that the Linux kernel project introduced the DCO (thus in a sense
providing its greatest legitimacy) and AIUI they use the approach you
are suggesting.[1] I am certain there are some other projects today that
use the DCO without requiring maintainer signoff. (Though that may be
because of differences in how such projects are run, I suppose.)

But I see nothing wrong with your suggestion, certainly. 

 - RF

[1]It occurs to me to ask, and I'm too lazy to check: is the DCO
documented by oVirt? If not it should be. The way the kernel does it,
it is clear that maintainer signoff is necessary, as I recall.