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