Re: Use of DCO

On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 04:13:32PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com&gt; 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.