From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 428B4B68 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:52:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com (mail-pd0-f173.google.com [209.85.192.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4884151 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdbqm3 with SMTP id qm3so48449790pdb.0 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Guenter Roeck Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:52:12 -0700 From: Guenter To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Message-ID: <20150711005212.GA11164@groeck-UX31A> References: <559EBD4C.6030502@gmail.com> <20150709190640.GC788@roeck-us.net> <20150709194734.GG9169@vmdeb7> <20150709201315.GF9417@thunk.org> <20150709205049.GB5154@roeck-us.net> <20150709214718.GG9417@thunk.org> <20150710182045.GA19854@roeck-us.net> <20150710185800.GW23515@io.lakedaemon.net> <20150710202407.GC9469@groeck-UX31A> <20150710211405.GJ7021@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150710211405.GJ7021@wotan.suse.de> Cc: James Bottomley , jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk, Jason Cooper , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Luis, On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:14:05PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > Multiple S-o-b's don't always mean gaming, though. For example, my > > company's workflow requires me to sign off upstream patches, not to > > get annother S-o-b with my name on it, but to certify that the patch > > does not accidentially publish any company IP (and, if it does, it is > > my fault, not the fault of the person who wrote the code). > > There is a danger to having people interpret the s-o-b tag differently > than what it originally was intended for, such confusion deserves > serious attention and my hope is that if folks detect these misuses > they can try to educate folks on it. The s-o-b tag means the person > is certifying under the Developer Certificate or Origin (DCO) the > patch in question. That's it. The practical gains of such a leight > weight development tool to use something like the s-o-b combined > with the huge legal merit behind it has convinced us to generalize > the DCO and encourage people outside of Linux to use it: > Not really sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that you consider the above to be a mis-use of s-o-b ? By co-signing a patch I do (co-)certify it under DCO; I am well aware of that. That it may have an additional context doesn't change that, or limit its value. I can well imagine that other companies have a similar approval flow, and I don't really understand why that would or could be a problem. Can you educate me ? Thanks, Guenter