Use of DCO

[Anthony Liguori]

Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> writes:

> 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.)

I'm not really sure.  I don't know of any really that don't do
maintainer Signed-off-bys.  The various git tools are designed to follow
this process (git-am will automatically add Signed-off-bys for you).

It's only because oVirt is using Gerrit that this isn't all automatic.

>
> 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.

Ack.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori